Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968, and the use of public Facebook posts

With many thanks to Luke Weston for summarising Part 3, Division 3 of the Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968:

Screenshots and reproductions are permitted under Part 3 Division 3 of the Copyright Act 1968, which allows reproduction for purposes of research, study, criticism, review, parody, satire, and reporting of news.

Please refer to the Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968, which is accessible here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133.txt

Screenshots and reproductions are permitted under Part 3 Division 3 which allows:

Division 3 — Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in works

40………. Fair dealing for purpose of research or study

41………. Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review…

41A……. Fair dealing for purpose of parody or satire..

Here is the full text of those sections [added April 23 2013]:

Division 3–Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in works

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 – SECT 41

Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review

–          A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and a sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made.

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 – SECT 41A

Fair dealing for purpose of parody or satire

–          A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of parody or satire.

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 – SECT 42

Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news

(1)  A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if:

(a)  it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made; or

(b)  it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news by means of a communication or in a cinematograph film.

(2)  The playing of a musical work in the course of reporting news by means of a communication or in a cinematograph film is not a fair dealing with the work for the purposes of this section if the playing of the work does not form part of the news being reported.

Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities – use of public content in screenshots:

Facebook Terms of Service Public Content

So, do not even attempt to claim that screenshots of your publicly available Facebook posts are a breach of copyright, or similar. It is demonstrably not the case, and you agreed to it by signing up to Facebook. Again:

…you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you…

Also, lodging a DMCA take-down notice necessitates that the claimant is signing a legal document. If they sign that legal document, knowing that they are making a false claim, then, they are open to prosecution under the Criminal Code Act 1995. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Especially when Fair Dealing provisions have already been explained to them:

Part 7.4—False or misleading statements

Division 136—False or misleading statements in applications

136.1 False or misleading statements in applications

Knowledge

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person makes a statement (whether orally, in a document or in any other way); and
(b) the person does so knowing that the statement:

(i) is false or misleading…

…Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

0 Responses to Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968, and the use of public Facebook posts

  1. Pingback: Meryl Dorey’s other Pertussis Lie | reasonablehank

  2. Pingback: Monika Milka threatens the internet (oh, and health) | reasonablehank

  3. Pingback: Well done, North Coast Public Health Unit. | reasonablehank

  4. Pingback: Australian Vaccination Network back to censoring critics with fraudulent copyright claims | reasonablehank

  5. Pingback: Meryl – of the family – Dorey versus the TGA (with a little help from her friend) | reasonablehank

  6. tuxcomputers says:

    Meryl Dorey has filed vexatious DCMA copyright claims against me I have the screenshots to prove it. Now how would I go about getting her in front of an authority?

  7. Bron says:

    Just speaks to morality doesn’t it .. they are dishonest to the core.

  8. Pingback: Anti-vaccine chiropractors 50 – the CAA Boards Extravaganza | reasonablehank

  9. Pingback: The Chiropractic Messiah Monologues 1 | reasonablehank

  10. Pingback: The Chiropractic Messiah Monologues 2 | reasonablehank

  11. Pingback: The Chiropractic Messiah Monologues 3 | reasonablehank

  12. Pingback: The Chiropractic Messiah Monologues 4 | reasonablehank

  13. Pingback: The Chiropractic Messiah Monologues 5 | reasonablehank

  14. Pingback: The Chiropractic Messiah Monologues 6 | reasonablehank

  15. Pingback: The Chiropractic Messiah Monologues 7 | reasonablehank

  16. Niki says:

    Reasonable Hank…Make sure your hands are clean before you start targeting innocent people! How low are you to tag people for liking a post, i was liking the fact that vaccines cause damage (long term and short term)….and that they should not be enforced. I would appreciate you untagging my name from a resource that is not accurate or true!

    Thankyou

  17. Pingback: Embedded in the hive-mind of the anti-vaccination ‘cult’ | reasonablehank

Leave a Reply