A screenshot of the Congressman's Facebook post
Steve King, not to be confused with famous writer Stephen King, is a Congressman that represents Iowa's district 4. He recently released this image, starring the classic "success kid" meme. The image is seemingly harmless, sporting a cringeworthy caption, an outdated meme, and a message from a man 50 years too old to use emojis. His post is absolutely perfect for Facebook. Yet the mother of "success kid," Laney Griner, will sue the Congressman if the post is not removed, taking the case to a federal court for copyright infringement.
Congressman King has a history of being an adamant defender of white supremacy, and his racist remarks have led to him being stripped of all his House committee seats. Ms. Griner does not want her son's face associated with King's image, hence the lawsuit.
This story is just another part of the bigger picture of copyright laws. We saw in the EU's "meme ban" an interpretation of memes that judges continue to use: Just because it is popular does not make it an exception to copyright laws. However, people continue to make memes from the same recycled trash every day for a few intangible internet points.
Questions:
1. To what extent do people own the rights to their own image (or their children's) if it has spread on the internet like the plague?
2. The Obama administration used the same image of "success kid" in 2013 to support immigration reform, with the permission of Ms. Griner. Does she have the right to pick and choose who uses the image based on political values?
3. Should copyright laws for memes even exist if there is virtually no efficient way to enforce them?
I think people definitely own the rights to their own or their children's pictures and it is up to them if they would like to require permission or credit when other people use their photos. In my opinion, it should be no different from pictures taken by photographers. It is definitely more difficult to control when a video or image goes viral, but using others' pictures for attention or personal gain without their permission is wrong and Ms. Griner has a very reasonable case that she does not want it to be used by someone she does not support. Just because there is no way effectively to enforce a law does not mean it should cease to exist. Plagiarism is not a criminal offense but still very widespread, yet it is still seen as wrong. Copyrighting for pictures or memes should be the same.
ReplyDeleteTo what extent? 100%. Just because an image spreads around doesn't mean its exempt from copyright laws. Remember, the first amendment severely inhibits prior restraint, so the image can still be used until the owner requests it not be. Because Ms. Griner owns the image, she has every right to decide who gets to use the image and who doesn't. I agree with what Justin W. says about laws that aren't efficiently enforced, and don't really have much to add in that regard. Also, come on, while there are a lot of reposts and uncreative internet point beggars out there, there are good memes posted each day. It's unfair to classify them all as "recycled trash".
ReplyDeleteLike Justin and Phillip, I think that people should and do have the right to use their own images and be protected from others unlawfully using their images, especially when it comes to their children, but copyright law doesn’t prohibit people from using other people’s images outright. Copyright law permits people to use other people’s images and works of art if it is classified as fair use, meaning while people can’t just rip someone’s exact photo, they can add to a person’s photo in some way to make it okay for their own use without having to get permission from the owner of the image. So while Ms. Griner has the right to choose who gets to use the image of her son as the owner of the image, Mr. King is able to argue that his use of the image falls under fair use because he has changed the image (the background is now the Capitol building). Although I don’t agree with the racist sentiments of Mr. King, I think it is important for people’s freedom of speech to be protected and parody of images falls within that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments above in that the mother has the right to decide how her child's picture is used and in what context, especially if it is used in such a way that does not align with her beliefs. Since the image is copyrighted, King has no right to use the picture without consent and permission, or making money off of it. I think that Ms. Griner has the right to choose how the photo will be used based on political values since she has copyrighted the image. While copyright laws on memes are difficult to enforce, I personally think they give the owner some control over how it is used, which is necessary if it is being used in a way that is offensive.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually a very interesting issue that is pretty relevant to our society. the internet is now the main platform that individuals use to communicate with each other and memes are something that are very hit-or-miss. Most of the times memes are misunderstood which can cause people to believe that they're offencive when they're not intending to me, and in this case I mean is being used to represent something that to me I'm originally represent. I personally believe that it wasn't originally published under professional circumstances so I don't know what copyright they have over the image because it is so public that they would have to monitor everything which I don't see as something that was possible.
ReplyDeleteKelsey brings up a good point that despite it being copyrighted normally, the widespread use of it on the internet is impossible to track. Additionally, only the image was copyrighted, which brings the problem of to what extent does a copyright of an image still remain copyrighted if the image is slightly altered. With the advent of the internet and all the information being transferred around, these questions about intellectual property become difficult to answer.
ReplyDeleteI know we are quick to think that logically, people should have control over their images. But if we were to require permission to use meme images like this, then every single "success kid" meme would be illegal because almost nobody has original permission. As much as I disagree with the message Rep. King is using the meme for, I see no reason to justify this as a violation of fair use. However, I do feel that the commercial aspect of his use gives a viable reason for the lawsuit: King is trying to profit off of the meme, not just use it as normal memes are.
ReplyDeleteIf the rights to the image are licensed essentially taking the control of usage from the people, then there's no argument here. It is completely legal and solely up to moral expectation and values. As Kevin stated, Rep. King has every case in his favor to use this image just as Obama had. As victor stated, the conversation is to what extent does the copyright of an image reach? From stanford, if the content is copyrighted after 1978, then the copyright lasts for the life of the copyright holder plus 70 years which then asks what are the limitations/ restrictions. For example, do children's image rights differ? Should it? and does political usage, or context have any effect? or should it? It's never too late to add more "if"s but like stated previously, the prolific nature of the internet is inevitable and doesn't necessarily abide by small clauses or rules. And adding more restrictions on internet usage and copyrights I personally believe will only hurt freedoms, and the free use attributes guaranteed by the space of the internet. Enforcement is tough, but as AI grows, it then becomes easier to enforce so if we still want to continue copyrights, then it should become easier to track and enforce soon. But does this effect rights/ the freedoms of the internet? We'll see and we'll get perspective on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI believe that she may be justified in expressing disapproval of her son's image in certain circumstances, however, she put the image up on the internet and Stephen King has used it within free use and not to profit financially off of the issue. There is no real way to enforce a copyright currently on the internet more than what they have done. His commercial usage does raise some questions on whether it is reaching a bit into profiting territory however.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that people should have the right to have a say in how their image is used or by who. That being said, however, I think it would prove to be much too difficult to actively enforce this on a widespread scale since there are so many pictures of people that constantly circulate the internet. I do think that Ms. Griner should have the right to pick and choose who gets to use the image because this is a case where it is specifically stated that the use of the image is prohibited for this person’s use. Additionally, it does not make sense for Ms. Griner to like the idea of a picture of her son being used for a cause that she does not believe in.
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely difficult to enforce intellectual property on the internet where any type of media can spread like wildfire. However, I believe that their owners should have some agency over how their work has spread and used. In this case, Ms. Griner absolutely has the right to choose which people use the image based on political values. As the creator and owner of the photo, she decides what public figures can associate with the photo and use it for their political advantage. Thus, I do believe that copyright laws for memes should exist even though in most cases they are impossible to enforce.
ReplyDelete