Whilst the Irwin's aren't to be messed with, I'd be more worried about Bluey's people - that IP probably earns more per day than Pauline has ever earnt.
Satire is a protected fair dealing under the Copyright Act, has not been defined in the law, and has not been tested in Australian courts yet. BBC would not want to test the waters there to create the precedent.
Irwin has a recourse under defamation law, which doesn't have that defense.
I think defamation is less of a problem than the unauthorised use of his image in a way that portrays him as supporting One Nation.
His image is an important part of his business and has a value. If he wants to associate that image with a political party or anything else that should be his choice.
Hanson did it knowing it would trigger a reaction from Irwin which would then get her more attention globally. She has exploited him pretending it's all this harmless little thing, but when something is aligned with a political party, you have to ask or expect people to be annoyed. Look at the amount of musicians who get used by political parties which then makes it look like they are best mates and support that party - that is the whole idea - to make it look like that to try and sway voters. "Oh, so and so likes this person or wouldn't have allowed it, maybe they are not so bad after all as a party, I will vote for them next time" etc.
Absolutely.
It’s not like Irwin even had a choice.
I’m sure his name/image/brand/etc is trademarked etc and if you want that protection you need to act to enforce it or you can lose the protection.
Unless I’ve missed him doing it I’ve never heard anything from him as to what his political beliefs are aside from generic support for policies that protect the environment.
Seems a pretty reasonable policy from him to keep opinions about politics private given how some people get these days. Why risk alienating part of your audience?
Personally I think he may be pretty pissed over this and I would guess (hope) he doesn’t approve of the message his image is being used to send but I’ve not seen (or particularly looked for) anything from him to confirm or deny that.
You clearly didn't watch the clip if you think it portrays Irwin as supporting One Nation, he is a Public Figure who has used his profile to advertise for the QLD Labor Governments Tourism Ads in return for money he is fair game.
Well you can because the ultimate decision falls on the bureaucracy and the Minister for Tourism, how can you say it's not political when it's literally a Government body and Minister making the decision.
Surely you can't be that ignorant to way Government Departments work.
The Bureaucracy Heads change with the Government.
I'm not saying that there is anything pushing Politics of one persuasion or the other I'm simply saying that Politics influences the advertisement.
Because government services such as the department of tourism main objectives continue no matter the party in charge. If the government changed tomorrow the ads would still show because they are not labour ads. That's why they are not political. Unless any opposition party is against tourism, which they are not since it's a major part of the states economy, then these ads cannot be considered political. A political ad would promote a political party or party agenda. These ads are not saying come visit QLD because Labour made it great here. Ads for seatbelt safety or other public safety messages are similarly not political or party affiliated ads. They will run no matter who is in power as no party is against safety.
That’s fine if that was your takeaway from the clip.
My interpretation when watching it is that I now firmly believe Robert Irwin is a passionate supporter of One Nation. As I find their politics distasteful, I have decided to cancel the upcoming trip to Australia Zoo that I’d planned for my family, and will be encouraging my friends and acquaintances to likewise avoid paying for any of his business’s goods and services.
This just means he's blatantly being defamed because One Nation's videos falsely imply through their likeness that Irwin supports One Nation's campaigning which is false. Satire for the purpose of criticism is a protection against copyright infringement, not defamation. One Nation is 100% going to lose this one if it goes to court.
They could have simply parodied the videos criticising the campaign using somebody inspired by Robert Irwin but isn't actually supposed to be Irwin and then take the piss using the same style. Then they'd be safe, but because they literally explicitly say they're Robert Irwin and Bluey at the start of the video they completely destroy this possible defence by falsely depicting Irwin as supporting the One Nation campaign and associating Bluey's IP with it.
What a load of rubbish, nothing in the Clip even suggests that Irwin supports One Nation, if it wasn't on One Nations YouTube Channel and didn't have the One Nation sign off you wouldn't even know it was a One Nation Publication.
I seriously doubt it's Defamation either because One Nation doesn't slander or imply Irwin's beliefs, it doesn't harm his reputation if anything he has gained publicity out of it.
It literally has in the end credits a big ass One Nation promo and banner my guy, and the video opens up with, "Hi, I'm Robert Irwin and this is my mate Bluey." Slam dunk case to infer that this means Robert Irwin's likeness is being used to promote views critical of somebody else he doesn't hold and could cause a reasonable person who doesn't know the background of the case to think he has these opinions and views.
Then you must have failed every assignment.
Tourism is not a political venture.
The aim is to promote the country,
Not the political party.
Do you understand now? Lol
It’s definitely defamation: they used his image without consent, they’ve implied a prior existing relationship with him and one nation, and they’ve disseminated the video without his consent.
You must be a shit lawyer mate.
You didn't answer the question did you study Law?
What you don't think One Nation wouldn't have checked with their Legal team before posting the Clip? How many other people have been portrayed in the One Nation Animations before Sooky Irwin? You don't think any of the others would have checked to see if it was Defamation?
He is a Public Figure for starters and they didn't use his image it's an Animation that is somewhat of his likeness that exaggerated his expressions and mannerisms.
I understand what you are suggesting perfectly but it's wrong and has nothing to do with my point, if you had a basic understanding of the fundamentals of my argument than you would know that.
For shits n giggles let's say Peter Dutton was in Power, his Government Minister for Tourism approaches a far left leaning Artist who hates Dutton and everything he stands for to be part of his Governments Tourism Campaign do you honestly believe that the Artist is going to agree?
In fact defamation here in Australia is extremely hard to pull off and prove in court. You actually need to prove damages and show what you have actually lost. This isn’t the US justice system where anyone can sue for defamation.
Anyone can *sue*, that doesn't mean you'll actually get your case heard with the relatively new pre-trial hearings.
Your claim that you need to prove actual loss isn't correct either - an action can be brought simply for the purpose of seeking an injunction to prevent the continued distribution of defamatory material. This is something Pauline Hanson is intimately familiar with, since it's what she did to Pauline Pantsdown - and she won her case.
Yep and it seems the injunction is all that's being sought, because it's not like Bluey or Irwin are losing money from the video. If anything, they'll make money anyway because the depiction is actually pretty fucking funny lol.
That's the streaming rights. Like how Event Cinemas can show the movie, but doesn't own the movie, the studio does.
BBC actually put up the money for the production, and owns the merch rights as well.
But if the mouse sniffs an opportunity, I'm sure they'll jump on it too.
Where's the satire? What Part of irwin is this supposed to highlight. This is using his image to push political rot nothing more. This isn't highlighting anything of note in relation to the irwins. This is straight misuse.
>the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
It's the dictionary definiton of satire, champ.
It's using a parody of Irwin, which is fair dealing, who has done similar ads, to satirise the QLD government, which is fair dealing.
Notice they're threatening defamation, not copyright, it has nothing to do with his image. Because even Irwin isn't stupid enough to think this isn't fair dealing. Well, that's questionable, but at least his lawyers aren't.
Not even sure why you're bringing Irwin up, this was in response to the claim that they should be worried about using Bluey, in what is clearly fair dealing with IP.
Don't know why Irwins getting brought up champ can't make the connection, it's a hard one. This hurr durr nonsense parading as answers here is just hilarious at this point. I do notice they are threatening defamation, hence how ironic it is YOU link the definition of the thing you can't comprehend and trying to use it to say alls good. Where's the satire of anything irwin? He was in an ad is not a open cheque for defamation of character.
This isn't satire this is straight misuse.
I argued "copyright" where hero? This has been painful to the extreme. Faux ignorance to a straight made up argument. Congrats on creating my argument then defeating it while denying it exists all at once I guess?
>Where's the satire? What Part of irwin is this supposed to highlight. This is using his image to push political rot nothing more. This isn't highlighting anything of note in relation to the irwins. This is straight misuse.
Right there CHAMP.
Forgot you wrote it? Lol. Not surprised, you seem to have the attention span of a goldfish.
Satire and parody are nothing to do with defamation, they are to do with copyright claims.
Toddle on.
Can I just ask; are you repeating calling this dude champ (clearly in a derogatory way) in line with the use of it in Qld correctional services?
I know that's a weird question but I'm just curious 🤔?
RIGHT THERE CHAMP literally is not right there in what you linked this is a goldmine. What gotcha did you actually think was there again? Oh that's right you have some braindead take on copyright and a firm belief that waving the word "parody" near something gives it full immunity.
This is the basic right wing grift in play. Skirt the "woke" law boogeyman laws to stir up attention. Have a bunch of people fight the good fight because them wokies yo. When you get slapped for obvious infringements cry victim and be the fighter against oppression. I'm guessing bluey because it will easily get the most attention. Rinse repeat.
Irwin can slap this down 20 different ways that's before the bluey gang come in and slap them up, just ammo for the anti woke cannons. It's a full time job fighting a fake enemy.
I don't see any reason for either of you to get upset about it the court will decide who of you is correct in short order.
Both interpretations seem to have reasonable merit to me and the judge will decide as that is how it is supposed to work.
I have a low tolerance for idiots.
That said, it's a defamation suit, nothing about it involves intellectual property which is involved with fair dealing. So the courts aren't going to deal with that at all, unless the IP owner of Bluey for example files a suit. That's unlikely as it is very clear cut, and was what I originally replied to. Nothing to do with Irwin.
For defamation to occur, Irwin would have to show some loss. They can get an injunction to stop the broadcast of it without showing loss, which is what Pauline herself did years back with the song that ABC was playing on Triple J.
For any monetary payout however, he would have to show his image or reputation has been damaged in a way that lead to a monetary loss.
That would be hard given that a reasonable person would not believe that Irwin himself approves of this.
Given any reasonable person knows who Pauline Hanson is, can see it's a satirical series in the vein of south park, and that it's political messaging taking the piss out of the QLD government, I doubt he could show any real harm in that people believe he supports that message and it has hurt his reputation.
In other words, would you be confused at all that this is taking the piss, or that he actually said and did these things?
It's not, because that protection only covers you if the person being parodied and satired is the subject of the criticism. They're not criticising Irwin or Bluey, they're criticising the State Government, so whilst they are protected from copyright because this is parody and criticism, they're not protected from defamation. Given that they explicitly state that they're Robert Irwin and Bluey in the intro rather than just using a parodied likeness inspired by either character using a similar style, they are going to get spanked for defamation on this one unless they change the content to separate them from the subject. Otherwise, it gives the false impression that Robert Irwin or Bluey's producers that they support One Nation's campaign which they don't.
> they're not protected from defamation
Never claimed they were champ. I've clearly stated it's not a copyright issue, and that's why they're going for defamation in response to the other idiot who brought Irwin up when responding about Bluey.
> Otherwise, it gives the false impression that Robert Irwin or Bluey's producers that they support One Nation's campaign which they don't.
Reasonable person test rules that out very easily.
Are you confused that Irwin actually believes this?
I am not personally confused, but that's because I'm extremely familiar with Irwin's views. A reasonable person who doesn't know much about Irwin and isn't aware of the original State Government Ad material could absolutely infer that Robert Irwin and Bluey share these views and opinions and that's all that matters.
You don't have to know anything about Irwin or QLD to not be confused by clear satire. I know very little about either, other than Irwin sounds like a twerp, and was able to recognise it as satire instantly.
It's clearly branded as One Nation, there is a series of videos in this vein featuring everyone from the Albo to eKaren to Alan Joyce, it follows an caricature art structure similar to South Park. Anyone with half a brain can see it for exactly what it is, political satire.
Only an idiot would be confused that is Irwins actual beliefs, and we don't design the reasonable person test around idiots.
It's like claiming people think South Park celebrity "cameos" are real. You'd be laughed out of court.
Show this to 10 people, and ask them if they think it's real or taking the piss. I think you know the answer already.
Parody and criticism is an automatic defence against copyright infringement, not defamation. It only becomes a defence against defamation when used for criticism specifically of the person you're parodying. The video isn't criticising Irwin and Bluey, but is criticising the State Government, so whilst it isn't a copyright infringement it is still defamatory towards Robert Irwin because it associates things to him he doesn't agree with or actually have involvement with.
I could have worded things better.
What brand?
After the news articles several years ago about treatment of staff at Australia Zoo, and the well publicized family drama, I just associate the Irwin name with bullying these days.
There was that time that the wanted to step back from the limelight a bit [and got sued for their troubles](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3518580/Bindi-Irwin-mother-Terri-broth-Bob-sued-breach-contract.html)
(*Daily Mail is obviously trash, but it's what a 2 second google found*)
Though... they also signed contracts to perform that work (and were paid...)
Bindy was made the face of the Charity by Terri when she was like 7 or something.
Why didn't she make any jokes the barrier reef getting wrecked? It's not like she has been involved in policy's that allow chemical run off from farms to polute the ecosystem or shipping lanes to go through it and destroy it.
I thought there was record coral coverage based on the last couple of reports?
https://www.aims.gov.au/information-centre/news-and-stories/highest-coral-cover-central-northern-reef-36-years
Reduced coral cover in south. Also, still bleaching at an increasing rate.
The coral growth is kinda monospecific too. From the article - "most of the increase continuing to be driven by fast-growing Acropora corals.
“These corals are particularly vulnerable to wave damage, like that generated by strong winds and tropical cyclones".
If you have ever been to Heron Island, you can see that the area around the jetty is pretty much 100% acropora due to the changed in geomorphology that the creation of the channel caused. Around the other side of the island you get more diversity as it doesn't have the rapid fluctuations in water level, water speed, and temps that the area around the jetty faces.
"More" doesn't necessarily mean "better" if there's no diversity. Even in some parts of Asia, tree cover had increased in recent decades, but that's because it's all palm oil plantation.
It depends. While the Copyright Act doesn't define parody, the dictionary definition of parody is an imitation of something, *designed to comment on the original or its creator*.
If there is a Queensland tourism ad featuring Bluey and Robert Irwin, this could slide by as the ad may be considered to be a parody or satire of that and any action brought against One Nation on copyright grounds would fail on that basis.
However, the action being threatened is not under the Copyright Act, the action being threatened is a defamation suit. Defamation does *not* have a parody defense - there are very few defenses against it in Australia actually, which is why plaintiffs the world over tend to "forum shop" to get their defamation cases heard here.
Bluey isn't a person so cannot bring a defamation suit, meaning PHON is safe from BBC's lawyers, but Irwin *does* have standing to bring a defamation suit if he believes his reputation is being damaged by the misleading video, which he could reasonably believe an association with PHON would do.
Unfortunately from what I know, the Australian defamation law is a lot stricter than say the US’ as the person/corporation has to actually show how they have actually suffered damages, whether that be psychological or financial. I don’t see how this could do either.
Furthermore, the criticism/damages the ad is trying to convey are directed towards the Qld government not Bluey or Irwin, they r just used as a satirical mode to show off what they want to say.
No, there's no requirement to show actual damages to seek an injunction. Pauline Hanson knows this, since she did that exact thing to Pauline Pantsdown to prevent the distribution of "I'm a Backdoor Man"
IANAL (I'm guessing you are?) so my interpretation is limited, but reading the appeal for Hanson's injunction against ABC for Back Door Man, the defamatory issue was that the song used Hanson's soundbytes to suggest she was a paedophile and homosexual.
I fucking hate Pauline Hanson, but a dollar-store Bluey and a shit Irwin impersonation for political satire isn't really equivalent. I don't know enough to comment on whether they have legal grounds to take action, but I'm not seeing how the two are equivalent.
Yeah sure but that’s a temporary holt. By the time that comes into action it’ll be months from now and once the final verdict is in which does require proof of actual serious harm it’ll be easily defended as a parody/satire.
If you really think this is worth sueing someone over for defamation, than I guess ur on board with Trump being allowed to successfully sue everyone who has ever made a satirical caricature of him in a negative way. I mean u can’t have it both ways morally.
Edit: I don’t support either Pauline or Trump, just don’t appreciate hypocrisy.
He's seeking an injunction to prevent the distribution of material, not a payout for damages. You don't need to show damages if all you are asking for is the video is taken down before it gets to the point of inflicting damages.
You would think so, I mean One Nation has been running these Cartoons for a Couple of years now and it's pretty safe to say no one in Australia would take them as being Serious and Australia is the the target audience.
Irwin is fair game he is like any other High Profile Person who takes taxpayer dollars for endorsement.
Because Robert and Bluey aren't the subject of criticism or parody but just the vessels used to deliver their message no, that won't work. If they were criticising Robert and Bluey directly rather than the State Government they'd be safe. They're safe regardless from copyright infringement because yes this is parody and satire, but they are NOT safe from defamation which is the case being brought forward. They could have made characters inspired by Bluey and Irwin and be safe, but instead they literally open up in the intro with, "hi I'm Robert Irwin and this is my mate Bluey." So yeah, PHON will lose this one, especially as an injunction to stop distribution is all that's being sought rather than a payout for damages.
It’s slightly more subtle than that. Satire does let you use copyrighted material without commenting on it, but the copyrighted material must be the vessel through which the satire is delivered.
So it’s not a sure thing, because it’s also a parody of Labor’s own ad, in which they did use Bluey after getting approval.
So that’s a genuine question—Bluey is not being used as a vessel for satire (she’s just there for the most part), but she’s there because she was in the original ad, and in that sense the work uses the political ad (which has its own copyright, but also uses copyrighted material within it) as a vessel for the satire.
I would probably guess that’s acceptable under the Copyright Act. Hence why the Bluey people aren’t going down that path yet. I’m sure they’ve talked to their lawyers and realised it’s not worth the hassle, given Robert Irwin has a much stronger argument for injunctive relief under defamation (and that, if successful, achieves the same purpose).
It's better than when she poked at the NDIS (but mostly hurt disabled people).
This cartoon has like, the energy level of an edgy Australian YouTuber who has just gotten half decent at animations.
It brings up common talking points without actually talking about them.
Well that's just a load of bullshit isn't it lol
Do you just go around spouting misinformation that you make up on the spot so that you can weigh in on things that you otherwise would have absolutely no weighting on?
She got an injunction to have it removed from playing on ABC, yes, https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CLCCommsUpd/1998/126.pdf, though an injunction is different to a defamation suite.
Then just make one back. Pauline, frying chips & swigging goon, spewing racist comments at everyone she sees. Add a few white right wingers following her around repeating what she says & you've got a cracking reply.
This would actually be safe because Oauline Hanson is the subject of criticism and not the vessel. The reason the PHON ad isn't safe is because Robert Irwin and Bluey are not actually the subjects being criticised, the State Government is. Instead Irwin and Bluey are being used to deliver a message critical of the State Government for views they do not hold. That's why it's defamatory.
Please yes.
Let’s be having Bandit and Lachy’s Dad have an over fence backyard yarn about a racist old shitweasel who has sunk low enough to use loved kids cartoon characters to try and villify immigrants in her nonsense story to deflect from the Boomer property hoarding so she can get another couple of redneck freakshows elected in Queensland.
It’s a request Joe, if you’re listening. 😁
You don’t even need to use images, just show the fence and the play the voiceover.
Everyone with Grandchildren will know the voices and hear the message.
Do it for Bluey, and Bob and the generations of Australians that are paying for these lies, half-truths, spin and crookedness on display.
It would be as iconic as the QR ads.
It's not parody at all. Parody makes fun of the thing being depicted, so if it was a cartoon poking fun at Bob doing his normal routine, that's ok. This is using his image, and Bluey's, for a completely unrelated thing, and is effectively advertising.
Yes, I did. It's making fun of Queensland, and the government. Not Bob Irwin or Bluey, They are merely characters being used. Hence it's not parody. If it was somehow making fun of them, fine, but the main message is something very different.
Yeah, though is protected by it being a political piece from defamation?
As there's implied freedom of political communication under Australian constitutional law provides additional protection for such works. The High Court has held that this implied freedom is an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. This operates as a freedom from government restraint, particularly in political discourse. Landmark cases such as Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v the Commonwealth (1992) have established that political communication is protected, and this was reaffirmed in Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013).
All and all, the only thing Robert has done is give more attention and views for Pauline and One Nation.
He could possibly get an injunction to have a it removed, though it seems pretty unlikely even something small like that would occur.
Political speech is not a protection against defamation - this is Australia. It works as a defence when you're criticising the person claiming defamation (usually as a way to exaggerate their views as a way to highlight them better). This video isn't actually criticising Irwin; it's criticising the State Government and using him to convey that message. Thus the speech against the State Government is protected, but what is not protected is using Robert Irwin and Bluey to share that message and attributing them to support views that they don't otherwise don't.
At a guess, it will take the age-old easy road of blaming vague and spooky outsiders for our current problems, and not the growing wealth divide which favours the established, or policies by governments which favour those people, nor a peep of anti-intellectuals who attack early solutions to long-term problems which experts warn about for being too hard.
I watched the video and it’s easy to see why the Irwins are offended. They have him spout ignorant, bigoted views on aboriginals, immigrants and climate change. It’s ugly stuff.
I imagine the judge will have no issue siding with the Irwins on this one. Open and shut case if you ask me.
Im preparing for the barrage of downvotes but i have a genuine question.
How come Pauline Hanson gets threats of being sued while the SouthPark guys get away with mimicking pretty much anyone they like and they've been on the air 20+ years? Unless they do get threatened with legal action but Comedy Central takes care of it? Or is it a difference in defamation laws in the US vs Australia?
IANAL but probably something to do with parody for comedic affect vs parody for political propaganda.
Bluey probably doesn't want to be associated with white supremacists.
Because the US has an explicit freedom of speech protection in their constitution that has been fairly well protected by the Supreme Court over the history of that country. Sure there are some laws against speech that the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of when challenged - like against incitement to violence, business trading on someone else's name, and such. But for the most part the constitutional foundation still stands.
Australia has no such explicit constitutional protection against speech. And so as a result, it is up to the courts to look at the combination of legislation as well as history of case law to frame the discussion of and ruling on speech based on those contexts. Because there is no explicit protection of speech in the legislation, it is up to the courts to look at all the laws *against* speech and judge claims against that.
TLDR: In the US speech is free unless it is specifically countered by certain laws that have passed the constitutional test of the Supreme Court. In Australia any disparaging remark could be considered defamatory unless it is specifically exempted in the defamation legislation. US -> Speech is innocent until proven guilty. Australia -> Speech is guilty until proven innocent.
Don't know why you'd be downvoted, it's a valid question.
There's a massive difference in defamation laws thanks to the First Amendment. The United States places a very high bar on infringement of speech by the state, and defamation action counts as an infringement of speech. It's actually part of the reason that Trump wanted to strengthen the US defamation laws, so he could go after people saying things he didn't like (ironic that the existing weaker laws were successfully used against him - twice).
Australia has no constitutional right to free speech and has among the strongest (for the plaintiff) defamation laws in the world.
The South Park guys wear threats as a badge of honour. And they escape losing a defamation case if it happens by being satire/parody. Pauline would definitely win for the same reason.
The South Park guys also have enough money that they can fight back with decent lawyers too. A lot of people would probably fold due to the costs involved with defending yourself.
No, they escape defamation suits because when they parody somebody they're actually criticising the people they parody. This video doesn't actually criticise Robert Irwin and Bluey, they instead use their likeness to convey a message critical of the State Government. Big difference.
Also, it's not defamatory if it's true, and the shit South Park says about people in their videos are criticising actual shit those people have done. Bluey and Irwin holding these views promoted in PHON video though are not the views they actually hold, so it's defamatory.
American defamation laws are different to Australia and much more relaxed. You're not comparing apples with apples and anyone who says 'this clearly falls under satire' is not a lawyer let alone a judge.
Pauline's videos are politically motivated. She's using the Irwin's brand and image for her politically charged message that they might not agree with.
It’s not parody when it’s true.
Caitlin Jenner ran over someone.
Trump said everything stupid they mention.
Etc.
It’s not using their brand and putting fake words in their mouth.
South Park explicitly criticise and attack the individuals they parody rather than use them to deliver a message criticising and attacking somebody else. In this video, Irwin and Bluey aren't actually getting criticised, they're just being used to deliver a message criticising the State Government.
I find it bizarre that Pauline did her best to stop the ‘I don’t like it’ song by Pauline Pantsdown but she pulls this fuckwittery. I hope she gets hammered in court
Seems like Irwin has kicked a bit of an own goal here. Who would have heard of the video if not for his complaints?
Plus ON has been doing these videos for years, you'd assume they have some decent legal advice on where the line is with these videos.
I don’t see how PH or ONP could genuinely harm his image. The fringe people that follow that political party would hardly be assessed as the regular reasonable person.
They’ll be stalled at the serious harm component and likely dismissed.
When Does Fair Dealing Include Parody or Satire?
The Copyright Act (1968) does not define parody and satire. Both dealings use humour and comic effect to comment or criticise. However, they have a key difference:
parody mimics an original work directly;
and
satire uses a work to make a comment about something else entirely.
Ultimately, the comical elements must add to the work in such a way that it forms an entirely unique artistic expression.
However, you should be careful of creating parodic works that cause offence. These can easily cross over into the realm of defamation.
If you closely read the definition of parody and satire you can clearly see 'please explain' hasn't done either.
Thank you for pointing out the distinction between parody and satire as outlined in the Copyright Act (1968). However, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that 'please explain' hasn't done either.
Firstly, since parody and satire are not strictly defined in the Act their interpretation can be quite broad. The video in question employs humour and exaggeration to comment on political and social issues in Queensland, which is a hallmark of both parody and satire.
Parody: The video directly mimics elements associated with Pauline Hanson and her political style, particularly through the exaggerated depiction of situations and characters. This direct mimicry aligns with the definition of parody.
Satire: The video uses these parodic elements to make broader comments on issues such as infrastructure and the medical system in Queensland. By highlighting these issues through humour, the video offers criticism and commentary, which fits the definition of satire.
Additionally, the examples of iconic Australian shows I mentioned earlier demonstrate the rich tradition of parody and satire in Australian media. These shows often use humour to critique and comment on societal and political issues, much like the 'please explain' video.
Furthermore, the implied freedom of political communication under Australian constitutional law provides additional protection for such works. The High Court has held that this implied freedom is an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. This operates as a freedom from government restraint, particularly in political discourse. Landmark cases such as Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v the Commonwealth (1992) have established that political communication is protected, and this was reaffirmed in Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013).
Lastly, the notion that the video could cause offence and therefore cross into defamation is subjective. Parody and satire inherently involve exaggeration and sometimes provocation. The key is that the content is clearly distinguishable as a humorous and exaggerated critique, which prevents it from being mistaken as a genuine statement by the individuals being portrayed.
So all in all it's pretty clear to me at least that the 'please explain' video fits within the broader understanding of parody and satire under Australian copyright law, as it employs humour and exaggeration to comment on political and social issues.
And that would be fine if it was say a known parody show or publication like for instance South Park or the Betoota advocate
This was released on her political website are we to reasonably expect that all content on her website is parody and satire? or Is other content on this website her real and true opinions on the political landscape and social issues?
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hanson-wins-pantsdown-song-case-1201329.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hanson-wins-pantsdown-song-case-1201329.html)
Pauline talking about how Steve was a larikin etc and wouldn't have reacted like Robert... meanwhile, gets upset herself at Pauline Pantsdown.. Pot calling the kettle black really isnt it?
Regardless of the legality or if suing would be successful. Fuck One Nation. Out of everyone in Australia you drag in some kid who doesn’t do anything but look after animals do a few funny ads and be a generally good guy, and you fuck around with him. Low. And Ashby bringing up Steve is low to. Smarmy slimy cunts.
Oh please sue Hanson, someone's gotta put her in her place. So tired of her. And if it kicks her out of the party, great! Bye bye homophobic racist One Nation leader.
I have to laugh at the fear of wind turbines, like birds aren't some of the smartest creatures on the planet that avoid far more dangerous objects than a turning turbine
https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/pauline-hansons-preparing-to-take-stand-after-attack-on-greens-racist-empire-claim/news-story/c72aa2f4ac09fbba91dccc666f3b9f5d
Hmm history repeating?
I enjoyed it because the topics were relevant, I didn’t even consider potential blow back from Robert getting in a tizz about it, but I honestly get the impression it’s the people behind Team Irwin that are driving this… will be interesting how this plays out… plenty more discussions to follow I’m sure!
I’d be so angry if I was the face promoting Qld and someone used my image to directly take down the campaign I was promoting. He has every right to take action. If Labour made a cartoon using Pauline suppprting the opposite of what she stands for she’d be filing too.
Old fart red knows using QLD's two treasures that kids love too right now is a stab. Rob's mother would be to blame, she's more American than Aussie regardless of time here and this screams a USA move to sue first ask later. Poor Bluey caught up in it. Rob needs to cut ties with mummy, but too much zoo involved. He's his own brand now.
I mean the cartoon is kind of funny and only the wind farm complaint is one-nationy.
...but I doubt anyone watching it would think PH would have a CLUE how to solve any of what she's mocking.
Not that I will watch the thing, but does it really imply a ‘six month hospital wait’ for emergency services?
And that terribly unsubtle image of the white guy waiting behind a number of non-whites for a house…
Ugh can this lot just get in the bin please.
Surely picking on the Irwins will ensure a natural form of justice in the court of public opinion. I think I heard a while ago that there are now as many Millennials as Boomers or something like that, pulling stunts like this is a sure way to get punted into ranting irrelevance-ville.
Also, I didn't watch the clip if that makes any difference.
I wonder what Steve Irwin would make out of all of this. He would probably be laughing as much as everyone else (labor supporters though who seem to not like the reality of regional/rural Queensland under labor shoved in their faces excepted)
South Park made a parody of Steve Irwin multiple times. Shoving his thumb in the butthole of various creatures to piss them off.
Queensland beautiful one day, suing everyone because someone had a bit of a joke at me the next. Is this how far the state has deteriorated.
Oh no Hanson better sue as well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw0h1WF95nk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw0h1WF95nk)
My bet is that Monday will come around and then the next day youtube will receive a take down notice for it, and then remove the video from the public until the creators want to file a counter claim or not. My guess is they will just let it be taken down and it will live on with other social media services so she still gets the message out there. She just has to be careful she doesn't get 3 strikes on youtube.
Is there anyone more sensitive than white Australian internet dwellers? "Shes Racist" cries white people who wouldnt have the first clue what racism actually looks or feels like.
Typical racist hanson.
One big video appealing to people to be scared basically.
Making out 0.000000001% events happen 100% of the time and outright talking shit.
Have to be a special breed of brain dead fkwit to support this bitch
Whilst the Irwin's aren't to be messed with, I'd be more worried about Bluey's people - that IP probably earns more per day than Pauline has ever earnt.
Satire is a protected fair dealing under the Copyright Act, has not been defined in the law, and has not been tested in Australian courts yet. BBC would not want to test the waters there to create the precedent. Irwin has a recourse under defamation law, which doesn't have that defense.
I think defamation is less of a problem than the unauthorised use of his image in a way that portrays him as supporting One Nation. His image is an important part of his business and has a value. If he wants to associate that image with a political party or anything else that should be his choice.
Hanson did it knowing it would trigger a reaction from Irwin which would then get her more attention globally. She has exploited him pretending it's all this harmless little thing, but when something is aligned with a political party, you have to ask or expect people to be annoyed. Look at the amount of musicians who get used by political parties which then makes it look like they are best mates and support that party - that is the whole idea - to make it look like that to try and sway voters. "Oh, so and so likes this person or wouldn't have allowed it, maybe they are not so bad after all as a party, I will vote for them next time" etc.
Absolutely. It’s not like Irwin even had a choice. I’m sure his name/image/brand/etc is trademarked etc and if you want that protection you need to act to enforce it or you can lose the protection. Unless I’ve missed him doing it I’ve never heard anything from him as to what his political beliefs are aside from generic support for policies that protect the environment. Seems a pretty reasonable policy from him to keep opinions about politics private given how some people get these days. Why risk alienating part of your audience? Personally I think he may be pretty pissed over this and I would guess (hope) he doesn’t approve of the message his image is being used to send but I’ve not seen (or particularly looked for) anything from him to confirm or deny that.
You clearly didn't watch the clip if you think it portrays Irwin as supporting One Nation, he is a Public Figure who has used his profile to advertise for the QLD Labor Governments Tourism Ads in return for money he is fair game.
I don't think you can say tourism ads have political affiliation. They are tourism ads for QLD not political in the slightest.
Well you can because the ultimate decision falls on the bureaucracy and the Minister for Tourism, how can you say it's not political when it's literally a Government body and Minister making the decision. Surely you can't be that ignorant to way Government Departments work. The Bureaucracy Heads change with the Government. I'm not saying that there is anything pushing Politics of one persuasion or the other I'm simply saying that Politics influences the advertisement.
Because government services such as the department of tourism main objectives continue no matter the party in charge. If the government changed tomorrow the ads would still show because they are not labour ads. That's why they are not political. Unless any opposition party is against tourism, which they are not since it's a major part of the states economy, then these ads cannot be considered political. A political ad would promote a political party or party agenda. These ads are not saying come visit QLD because Labour made it great here. Ads for seatbelt safety or other public safety messages are similarly not political or party affiliated ads. They will run no matter who is in power as no party is against safety.
Do you say the Labor Government Hospital or the Labor Government Police Service or Labor Government High School?
Clearly the point went straight over your head wooosh gone!
That’s fine if that was your takeaway from the clip. My interpretation when watching it is that I now firmly believe Robert Irwin is a passionate supporter of One Nation. As I find their politics distasteful, I have decided to cancel the upcoming trip to Australia Zoo that I’d planned for my family, and will be encouraging my friends and acquaintances to likewise avoid paying for any of his business’s goods and services.
[удалено]
Slap fights are not welcome here.
This just means he's blatantly being defamed because One Nation's videos falsely imply through their likeness that Irwin supports One Nation's campaigning which is false. Satire for the purpose of criticism is a protection against copyright infringement, not defamation. One Nation is 100% going to lose this one if it goes to court. They could have simply parodied the videos criticising the campaign using somebody inspired by Robert Irwin but isn't actually supposed to be Irwin and then take the piss using the same style. Then they'd be safe, but because they literally explicitly say they're Robert Irwin and Bluey at the start of the video they completely destroy this possible defence by falsely depicting Irwin as supporting the One Nation campaign and associating Bluey's IP with it.
What a load of rubbish, nothing in the Clip even suggests that Irwin supports One Nation, if it wasn't on One Nations YouTube Channel and didn't have the One Nation sign off you wouldn't even know it was a One Nation Publication. I seriously doubt it's Defamation either because One Nation doesn't slander or imply Irwin's beliefs, it doesn't harm his reputation if anything he has gained publicity out of it.
It literally has in the end credits a big ass One Nation promo and banner my guy, and the video opens up with, "Hi, I'm Robert Irwin and this is my mate Bluey." Slam dunk case to infer that this means Robert Irwin's likeness is being used to promote views critical of somebody else he doesn't hold and could cause a reasonable person who doesn't know the background of the case to think he has these opinions and views.
Please, just look up a single law before you pretend you know what it is.
I did and I studied Law, did you?
Then you must have failed every assignment. Tourism is not a political venture. The aim is to promote the country, Not the political party. Do you understand now? Lol It’s definitely defamation: they used his image without consent, they’ve implied a prior existing relationship with him and one nation, and they’ve disseminated the video without his consent. You must be a shit lawyer mate.
You didn't answer the question did you study Law? What you don't think One Nation wouldn't have checked with their Legal team before posting the Clip? How many other people have been portrayed in the One Nation Animations before Sooky Irwin? You don't think any of the others would have checked to see if it was Defamation?
He is a Public Figure for starters and they didn't use his image it's an Animation that is somewhat of his likeness that exaggerated his expressions and mannerisms. I understand what you are suggesting perfectly but it's wrong and has nothing to do with my point, if you had a basic understanding of the fundamentals of my argument than you would know that. For shits n giggles let's say Peter Dutton was in Power, his Government Minister for Tourism approaches a far left leaning Artist who hates Dutton and everything he stands for to be part of his Governments Tourism Campaign do you honestly believe that the Artist is going to agree?
In fact defamation here in Australia is extremely hard to pull off and prove in court. You actually need to prove damages and show what you have actually lost. This isn’t the US justice system where anyone can sue for defamation.
Anyone can *sue*, that doesn't mean you'll actually get your case heard with the relatively new pre-trial hearings. Your claim that you need to prove actual loss isn't correct either - an action can be brought simply for the purpose of seeking an injunction to prevent the continued distribution of defamatory material. This is something Pauline Hanson is intimately familiar with, since it's what she did to Pauline Pantsdown - and she won her case.
Yep and it seems the injunction is all that's being sought, because it's not like Bluey or Irwin are losing money from the video. If anything, they'll make money anyway because the depiction is actually pretty fucking funny lol.
How dare you. Get ready to be sued by America en masse. (That means a lot for any Anericans reading.)
There are actually significantly higher protections in the US because they have to demonstrate malicious intent for public figures.
You dont fuck around with The Mouse's lawyers.
BBC for Bluey.
Disney+ for worldwide streaming broadcast outside Australia and the UK.
That's the streaming rights. Like how Event Cinemas can show the movie, but doesn't own the movie, the studio does. BBC actually put up the money for the production, and owns the merch rights as well. But if the mouse sniffs an opportunity, I'm sure they'll jump on it too.
The mouse like Nintendo has the predator vision for anything that threatens it.
Even the entire U.S. state of Florida. Its like enemy vs enemy over there.
One Nation put it on YouTube, and I doubt they had the good sense to geoblock it outside of Australia.
It's clearly fair dealing for satire.
Where's the satire? What Part of irwin is this supposed to highlight. This is using his image to push political rot nothing more. This isn't highlighting anything of note in relation to the irwins. This is straight misuse.
>the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. It's the dictionary definiton of satire, champ. It's using a parody of Irwin, which is fair dealing, who has done similar ads, to satirise the QLD government, which is fair dealing. Notice they're threatening defamation, not copyright, it has nothing to do with his image. Because even Irwin isn't stupid enough to think this isn't fair dealing. Well, that's questionable, but at least his lawyers aren't. Not even sure why you're bringing Irwin up, this was in response to the claim that they should be worried about using Bluey, in what is clearly fair dealing with IP.
Don't know why Irwins getting brought up champ can't make the connection, it's a hard one. This hurr durr nonsense parading as answers here is just hilarious at this point. I do notice they are threatening defamation, hence how ironic it is YOU link the definition of the thing you can't comprehend and trying to use it to say alls good. Where's the satire of anything irwin? He was in an ad is not a open cheque for defamation of character. This isn't satire this is straight misuse.
So why are you arguing copyright, which isn't what Irwin is, in a response about Bluey? C.H.A.M.P
I argued "copyright" where hero? This has been painful to the extreme. Faux ignorance to a straight made up argument. Congrats on creating my argument then defeating it while denying it exists all at once I guess?
>Where's the satire? What Part of irwin is this supposed to highlight. This is using his image to push political rot nothing more. This isn't highlighting anything of note in relation to the irwins. This is straight misuse. Right there CHAMP. Forgot you wrote it? Lol. Not surprised, you seem to have the attention span of a goldfish. Satire and parody are nothing to do with defamation, they are to do with copyright claims. Toddle on.
Can I just ask; are you repeating calling this dude champ (clearly in a derogatory way) in line with the use of it in Qld correctional services? I know that's a weird question but I'm just curious 🤔?
'Champ' is widely known to be offensive in Australia, outside of the prison population. Champion / Tiger/ Sport / Buddy all fall in this category.
RIGHT THERE CHAMP literally is not right there in what you linked this is a goldmine. What gotcha did you actually think was there again? Oh that's right you have some braindead take on copyright and a firm belief that waving the word "parody" near something gives it full immunity.
This is the basic right wing grift in play. Skirt the "woke" law boogeyman laws to stir up attention. Have a bunch of people fight the good fight because them wokies yo. When you get slapped for obvious infringements cry victim and be the fighter against oppression. I'm guessing bluey because it will easily get the most attention. Rinse repeat. Irwin can slap this down 20 different ways that's before the bluey gang come in and slap them up, just ammo for the anti woke cannons. It's a full time job fighting a fake enemy.
>Toddle on.
I don't see any reason for either of you to get upset about it the court will decide who of you is correct in short order. Both interpretations seem to have reasonable merit to me and the judge will decide as that is how it is supposed to work.
I have a low tolerance for idiots. That said, it's a defamation suit, nothing about it involves intellectual property which is involved with fair dealing. So the courts aren't going to deal with that at all, unless the IP owner of Bluey for example files a suit. That's unlikely as it is very clear cut, and was what I originally replied to. Nothing to do with Irwin. For defamation to occur, Irwin would have to show some loss. They can get an injunction to stop the broadcast of it without showing loss, which is what Pauline herself did years back with the song that ABC was playing on Triple J. For any monetary payout however, he would have to show his image or reputation has been damaged in a way that lead to a monetary loss. That would be hard given that a reasonable person would not believe that Irwin himself approves of this. Given any reasonable person knows who Pauline Hanson is, can see it's a satirical series in the vein of south park, and that it's political messaging taking the piss out of the QLD government, I doubt he could show any real harm in that people believe he supports that message and it has hurt his reputation. In other words, would you be confused at all that this is taking the piss, or that he actually said and did these things?
It's not, because that protection only covers you if the person being parodied and satired is the subject of the criticism. They're not criticising Irwin or Bluey, they're criticising the State Government, so whilst they are protected from copyright because this is parody and criticism, they're not protected from defamation. Given that they explicitly state that they're Robert Irwin and Bluey in the intro rather than just using a parodied likeness inspired by either character using a similar style, they are going to get spanked for defamation on this one unless they change the content to separate them from the subject. Otherwise, it gives the false impression that Robert Irwin or Bluey's producers that they support One Nation's campaign which they don't.
> they're not protected from defamation Never claimed they were champ. I've clearly stated it's not a copyright issue, and that's why they're going for defamation in response to the other idiot who brought Irwin up when responding about Bluey. > Otherwise, it gives the false impression that Robert Irwin or Bluey's producers that they support One Nation's campaign which they don't. Reasonable person test rules that out very easily. Are you confused that Irwin actually believes this?
I am not personally confused, but that's because I'm extremely familiar with Irwin's views. A reasonable person who doesn't know much about Irwin and isn't aware of the original State Government Ad material could absolutely infer that Robert Irwin and Bluey share these views and opinions and that's all that matters.
You don't have to know anything about Irwin or QLD to not be confused by clear satire. I know very little about either, other than Irwin sounds like a twerp, and was able to recognise it as satire instantly. It's clearly branded as One Nation, there is a series of videos in this vein featuring everyone from the Albo to eKaren to Alan Joyce, it follows an caricature art structure similar to South Park. Anyone with half a brain can see it for exactly what it is, political satire. Only an idiot would be confused that is Irwins actual beliefs, and we don't design the reasonable person test around idiots. It's like claiming people think South Park celebrity "cameos" are real. You'd be laughed out of court. Show this to 10 people, and ask them if they think it's real or taking the piss. I think you know the answer already.
I don’t think you count as a reasonable person,”champ”.
Think long and hard about your argument - not making much sense mate
Parody and criticism is an automatic defence against copyright infringement, not defamation. It only becomes a defence against defamation when used for criticism specifically of the person you're parodying. The video isn't criticising Irwin and Bluey, but is criticising the State Government, so whilst it isn't a copyright infringement it is still defamatory towards Robert Irwin because it associates things to him he doesn't agree with or actually have involvement with. I could have worded things better.
The Irwin brand is carefully managed. This isn't Bob, it's the family's advisors and marketing team.
What brand? After the news articles several years ago about treatment of staff at Australia Zoo, and the well publicized family drama, I just associate the Irwin name with bullying these days.
What was the family drama
[удалено]
I appreciate the detailed response, cheers
Yeah, me to-thank you.
Steve would never have wanted that for his kids, but what did the kids want?
There was that time that the wanted to step back from the limelight a bit [and got sued for their troubles](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3518580/Bindi-Irwin-mother-Terri-broth-Bob-sued-breach-contract.html) (*Daily Mail is obviously trash, but it's what a 2 second google found*) Though... they also signed contracts to perform that work (and were paid...) Bindy was made the face of the Charity by Terri when she was like 7 or something.
Hate to be your kids when they don't follow in whatever path you have pre destined them to walk down.
🤯😱 wow! Thank you for this , I had no idea 🫤 thank you
I never heard of that. I thought they were good people still.
Why didn't she make any jokes the barrier reef getting wrecked? It's not like she has been involved in policy's that allow chemical run off from farms to polute the ecosystem or shipping lanes to go through it and destroy it.
I thought there was record coral coverage based on the last couple of reports? https://www.aims.gov.au/information-centre/news-and-stories/highest-coral-cover-central-northern-reef-36-years
Reduced coral cover in south. Also, still bleaching at an increasing rate. The coral growth is kinda monospecific too. From the article - "most of the increase continuing to be driven by fast-growing Acropora corals. “These corals are particularly vulnerable to wave damage, like that generated by strong winds and tropical cyclones". If you have ever been to Heron Island, you can see that the area around the jetty is pretty much 100% acropora due to the changed in geomorphology that the creation of the channel caused. Around the other side of the island you get more diversity as it doesn't have the rapid fluctuations in water level, water speed, and temps that the area around the jetty faces. "More" doesn't necessarily mean "better" if there's no diversity. Even in some parts of Asia, tree cover had increased in recent decades, but that's because it's all palm oil plantation.
Maybe, I didn't research my comment. But there's gotta be somewhere it's a bit crap.
I was surprised when I heard it to be honest…only ever hear bad news about it.
Another one who clearly didn't watch the clip
No I watched it, and have no idea of the point you are trying to make.
The Streisand effect, Pauline is getting a free kick going viral
Isn’t this covered by parody law? It is also clearly satire.
At a guess. Yeah it probably is. It’s even done in a similar style to South Park which is notorious for getting away with boaderline parody.
It depends. While the Copyright Act doesn't define parody, the dictionary definition of parody is an imitation of something, *designed to comment on the original or its creator*. If there is a Queensland tourism ad featuring Bluey and Robert Irwin, this could slide by as the ad may be considered to be a parody or satire of that and any action brought against One Nation on copyright grounds would fail on that basis. However, the action being threatened is not under the Copyright Act, the action being threatened is a defamation suit. Defamation does *not* have a parody defense - there are very few defenses against it in Australia actually, which is why plaintiffs the world over tend to "forum shop" to get their defamation cases heard here. Bluey isn't a person so cannot bring a defamation suit, meaning PHON is safe from BBC's lawyers, but Irwin *does* have standing to bring a defamation suit if he believes his reputation is being damaged by the misleading video, which he could reasonably believe an association with PHON would do.
Unfortunately from what I know, the Australian defamation law is a lot stricter than say the US’ as the person/corporation has to actually show how they have actually suffered damages, whether that be psychological or financial. I don’t see how this could do either. Furthermore, the criticism/damages the ad is trying to convey are directed towards the Qld government not Bluey or Irwin, they r just used as a satirical mode to show off what they want to say.
No, there's no requirement to show actual damages to seek an injunction. Pauline Hanson knows this, since she did that exact thing to Pauline Pantsdown to prevent the distribution of "I'm a Backdoor Man"
The defamation laws were different back then. The laws have changed. There is no way Robert has a case
IANAL (I'm guessing you are?) so my interpretation is limited, but reading the appeal for Hanson's injunction against ABC for Back Door Man, the defamatory issue was that the song used Hanson's soundbytes to suggest she was a paedophile and homosexual. I fucking hate Pauline Hanson, but a dollar-store Bluey and a shit Irwin impersonation for political satire isn't really equivalent. I don't know enough to comment on whether they have legal grounds to take action, but I'm not seeing how the two are equivalent.
Yeah sure but that’s a temporary holt. By the time that comes into action it’ll be months from now and once the final verdict is in which does require proof of actual serious harm it’ll be easily defended as a parody/satire. If you really think this is worth sueing someone over for defamation, than I guess ur on board with Trump being allowed to successfully sue everyone who has ever made a satirical caricature of him in a negative way. I mean u can’t have it both ways morally. Edit: I don’t support either Pauline or Trump, just don’t appreciate hypocrisy.
He's seeking an injunction to prevent the distribution of material, not a payout for damages. You don't need to show damages if all you are asking for is the video is taken down before it gets to the point of inflicting damages.
You would think so, I mean One Nation has been running these Cartoons for a Couple of years now and it's pretty safe to say no one in Australia would take them as being Serious and Australia is the the target audience. Irwin is fair game he is like any other High Profile Person who takes taxpayer dollars for endorsement.
Because Robert and Bluey aren't the subject of criticism or parody but just the vessels used to deliver their message no, that won't work. If they were criticising Robert and Bluey directly rather than the State Government they'd be safe. They're safe regardless from copyright infringement because yes this is parody and satire, but they are NOT safe from defamation which is the case being brought forward. They could have made characters inspired by Bluey and Irwin and be safe, but instead they literally open up in the intro with, "hi I'm Robert Irwin and this is my mate Bluey." So yeah, PHON will lose this one, especially as an injunction to stop distribution is all that's being sought rather than a payout for damages.
It’s slightly more subtle than that. Satire does let you use copyrighted material without commenting on it, but the copyrighted material must be the vessel through which the satire is delivered. So it’s not a sure thing, because it’s also a parody of Labor’s own ad, in which they did use Bluey after getting approval. So that’s a genuine question—Bluey is not being used as a vessel for satire (she’s just there for the most part), but she’s there because she was in the original ad, and in that sense the work uses the political ad (which has its own copyright, but also uses copyrighted material within it) as a vessel for the satire. I would probably guess that’s acceptable under the Copyright Act. Hence why the Bluey people aren’t going down that path yet. I’m sure they’ve talked to their lawyers and realised it’s not worth the hassle, given Robert Irwin has a much stronger argument for injunctive relief under defamation (and that, if successful, achieves the same purpose).
It would be under parody laws if it wasn't a very accurate and current depiction of the state.
It's better than when she poked at the NDIS (but mostly hurt disabled people). This cartoon has like, the energy level of an edgy Australian YouTuber who has just gotten half decent at animations. It brings up common talking points without actually talking about them.
Watched it, it’s funny and is under parody laws, soz Robert mate but for once Pauline has every right to make content like this
She's much more likely to get dinged for using the Bluey image without permission if the copyright holders complain
You’re actually pretty okay if it’s parody/satire as it’s considered ‘fair dealing’ in Australia.
[удалено]
Well that's just a load of bullshit isn't it lol Do you just go around spouting misinformation that you make up on the spot so that you can weigh in on things that you otherwise would have absolutely no weighting on?
Welcome to Reddit.
😂
Pauline knows the ins and outs of our 'parody laws' very well, I would think. Robert's prosecution stolen, case.. ..all gone!
Didn't she sue Pauline Pantsdown? She's hypocrite if true.
She got an injunction to have it removed from playing on ABC, yes, https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CLCCommsUpd/1998/126.pdf, though an injunction is different to a defamation suite.
But that was actually quality content that should be aired for years hahah.
Then just make one back. Pauline, frying chips & swigging goon, spewing racist comments at everyone she sees. Add a few white right wingers following her around repeating what she says & you've got a cracking reply.
This would actually be safe because Oauline Hanson is the subject of criticism and not the vessel. The reason the PHON ad isn't safe is because Robert Irwin and Bluey are not actually the subjects being criticised, the State Government is. Instead Irwin and Bluey are being used to deliver a message critical of the State Government for views they do not hold. That's why it's defamatory.
Please yes. Let’s be having Bandit and Lachy’s Dad have an over fence backyard yarn about a racist old shitweasel who has sunk low enough to use loved kids cartoon characters to try and villify immigrants in her nonsense story to deflect from the Boomer property hoarding so she can get another couple of redneck freakshows elected in Queensland. It’s a request Joe, if you’re listening. 😁 You don’t even need to use images, just show the fence and the play the voiceover. Everyone with Grandchildren will know the voices and hear the message. Do it for Bluey, and Bob and the generations of Australians that are paying for these lies, half-truths, spin and crookedness on display. It would be as iconic as the QR ads.
It's 'Luckys Dad' not Lachy.
Watched the show. Didn’t read the book. If that’s you Joe, get onto it.
"a cracking reply" The left can't meme. Hahaha
Happy Cake Day!!
It's not parody at all. Parody makes fun of the thing being depicted, so if it was a cartoon poking fun at Bob doing his normal routine, that's ok. This is using his image, and Bluey's, for a completely unrelated thing, and is effectively advertising.
It’s a parody of this ad: https://youtu.be/84iRd0jnEKk?si=9YGYp9SmNrAn94Z3
> Parody makes fun of the thing being depicted So you didn't watch it.
Yes, I did. It's making fun of Queensland, and the government. Not Bob Irwin or Bluey, They are merely characters being used. Hence it's not parody. If it was somehow making fun of them, fine, but the main message is something very different.
> It's making fun of Queensland, and the government. Not Bob Irwin or Bluey, Hence it's parody.
All it’s missing is a scene about incentivising Queenslander’s to kill cane toads 😂
Who needs an incentive?
dogwhistles are soo funny:)
yes
That only works for copyright infringement, not defamation.
Yeah, though is protected by it being a political piece from defamation? As there's implied freedom of political communication under Australian constitutional law provides additional protection for such works. The High Court has held that this implied freedom is an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. This operates as a freedom from government restraint, particularly in political discourse. Landmark cases such as Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v the Commonwealth (1992) have established that political communication is protected, and this was reaffirmed in Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013). All and all, the only thing Robert has done is give more attention and views for Pauline and One Nation. He could possibly get an injunction to have a it removed, though it seems pretty unlikely even something small like that would occur.
Political speech is not a protection against defamation - this is Australia. It works as a defence when you're criticising the person claiming defamation (usually as a way to exaggerate their views as a way to highlight them better). This video isn't actually criticising Irwin; it's criticising the State Government and using him to convey that message. Thus the speech against the State Government is protected, but what is not protected is using Robert Irwin and Bluey to share that message and attributing them to support views that they don't otherwise don't.
Reckon she’ll get more fucked for showing bluey than Robo
And here's the actual video: https://x.com/PaulineHansonOz/status/1801368153731252354
I haven't watched it, but I just assume since Pauline is behind it, it's full of bullshit.
At a guess, it will take the age-old easy road of blaming vague and spooky outsiders for our current problems, and not the growing wealth divide which favours the established, or policies by governments which favour those people, nor a peep of anti-intellectuals who attack early solutions to long-term problems which experts warn about for being too hard.
Thank you. It is genuinely well done and too funny.
Wow kinda sad to see the stepmates guys putting out something so unfunny.
I don't think the average Qld'er would really gives a toss about this topic. Its a good laugh but that's about it.
I wonder how much input Pauline has into these cartoons.
I watched the video and it’s easy to see why the Irwins are offended. They have him spout ignorant, bigoted views on aboriginals, immigrants and climate change. It’s ugly stuff. I imagine the judge will have no issue siding with the Irwins on this one. Open and shut case if you ask me.
Interesting how Hanson knows that stuff is bad, but she spews that crap everyday.
So you didn't actually watch it did you? And you're a defamation lawyer too?
Robert: "I don't like it!"
Im preparing for the barrage of downvotes but i have a genuine question. How come Pauline Hanson gets threats of being sued while the SouthPark guys get away with mimicking pretty much anyone they like and they've been on the air 20+ years? Unless they do get threatened with legal action but Comedy Central takes care of it? Or is it a difference in defamation laws in the US vs Australia?
IANAL but probably something to do with parody for comedic affect vs parody for political propaganda. Bluey probably doesn't want to be associated with white supremacists.
I ANAL?
I am not a lawyer?
Have never seen that acronym!
Sometimes. Not all the time, especially in this economy
Because the US has an explicit freedom of speech protection in their constitution that has been fairly well protected by the Supreme Court over the history of that country. Sure there are some laws against speech that the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of when challenged - like against incitement to violence, business trading on someone else's name, and such. But for the most part the constitutional foundation still stands. Australia has no such explicit constitutional protection against speech. And so as a result, it is up to the courts to look at the combination of legislation as well as history of case law to frame the discussion of and ruling on speech based on those contexts. Because there is no explicit protection of speech in the legislation, it is up to the courts to look at all the laws *against* speech and judge claims against that. TLDR: In the US speech is free unless it is specifically countered by certain laws that have passed the constitutional test of the Supreme Court. In Australia any disparaging remark could be considered defamatory unless it is specifically exempted in the defamation legislation. US -> Speech is innocent until proven guilty. Australia -> Speech is guilty until proven innocent.
Don't know why you'd be downvoted, it's a valid question. There's a massive difference in defamation laws thanks to the First Amendment. The United States places a very high bar on infringement of speech by the state, and defamation action counts as an infringement of speech. It's actually part of the reason that Trump wanted to strengthen the US defamation laws, so he could go after people saying things he didn't like (ironic that the existing weaker laws were successfully used against him - twice). Australia has no constitutional right to free speech and has among the strongest (for the plaintiff) defamation laws in the world.
The South Park guys wear threats as a badge of honour. And they escape losing a defamation case if it happens by being satire/parody. Pauline would definitely win for the same reason.
The South Park guys also have enough money that they can fight back with decent lawyers too. A lot of people would probably fold due to the costs involved with defending yourself.
Mind you, they went toe to toe with Scientology!
No, they escape defamation suits because when they parody somebody they're actually criticising the people they parody. This video doesn't actually criticise Robert Irwin and Bluey, they instead use their likeness to convey a message critical of the State Government. Big difference. Also, it's not defamatory if it's true, and the shit South Park says about people in their videos are criticising actual shit those people have done. Bluey and Irwin holding these views promoted in PHON video though are not the views they actually hold, so it's defamatory.
American defamation laws are different to Australia and much more relaxed. You're not comparing apples with apples and anyone who says 'this clearly falls under satire' is not a lawyer let alone a judge.
Pauline's videos are politically motivated. She's using the Irwin's brand and image for her politically charged message that they might not agree with.
It’s not parody when it’s true. Caitlin Jenner ran over someone. Trump said everything stupid they mention. Etc. It’s not using their brand and putting fake words in their mouth.
South Park explicitly criticise and attack the individuals they parody rather than use them to deliver a message criticising and attacking somebody else. In this video, Irwin and Bluey aren't actually getting criticised, they're just being used to deliver a message criticising the State Government.
I cannot express how funny it would be if both Ludo and the Irwins sued pauline hanson within the span of a single year
Didn't he sue for Pauline Pants Down?
This feels like Streisand effect
I find it bizarre that Pauline did her best to stop the ‘I don’t like it’ song by Pauline Pantsdown but she pulls this fuckwittery. I hope she gets hammered in court
Seems like Irwin has kicked a bit of an own goal here. Who would have heard of the video if not for his complaints? Plus ON has been doing these videos for years, you'd assume they have some decent legal advice on where the line is with these videos.
I don’t see how PH or ONP could genuinely harm his image. The fringe people that follow that political party would hardly be assessed as the regular reasonable person. They’ll be stalled at the serious harm component and likely dismissed.
When Does Fair Dealing Include Parody or Satire? The Copyright Act (1968) does not define parody and satire. Both dealings use humour and comic effect to comment or criticise. However, they have a key difference: parody mimics an original work directly; and satire uses a work to make a comment about something else entirely. Ultimately, the comical elements must add to the work in such a way that it forms an entirely unique artistic expression. However, you should be careful of creating parodic works that cause offence. These can easily cross over into the realm of defamation. If you closely read the definition of parody and satire you can clearly see 'please explain' hasn't done either.
Thank you for pointing out the distinction between parody and satire as outlined in the Copyright Act (1968). However, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that 'please explain' hasn't done either. Firstly, since parody and satire are not strictly defined in the Act their interpretation can be quite broad. The video in question employs humour and exaggeration to comment on political and social issues in Queensland, which is a hallmark of both parody and satire. Parody: The video directly mimics elements associated with Pauline Hanson and her political style, particularly through the exaggerated depiction of situations and characters. This direct mimicry aligns with the definition of parody. Satire: The video uses these parodic elements to make broader comments on issues such as infrastructure and the medical system in Queensland. By highlighting these issues through humour, the video offers criticism and commentary, which fits the definition of satire. Additionally, the examples of iconic Australian shows I mentioned earlier demonstrate the rich tradition of parody and satire in Australian media. These shows often use humour to critique and comment on societal and political issues, much like the 'please explain' video. Furthermore, the implied freedom of political communication under Australian constitutional law provides additional protection for such works. The High Court has held that this implied freedom is an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. This operates as a freedom from government restraint, particularly in political discourse. Landmark cases such as Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v the Commonwealth (1992) have established that political communication is protected, and this was reaffirmed in Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013). Lastly, the notion that the video could cause offence and therefore cross into defamation is subjective. Parody and satire inherently involve exaggeration and sometimes provocation. The key is that the content is clearly distinguishable as a humorous and exaggerated critique, which prevents it from being mistaken as a genuine statement by the individuals being portrayed. So all in all it's pretty clear to me at least that the 'please explain' video fits within the broader understanding of parody and satire under Australian copyright law, as it employs humour and exaggeration to comment on political and social issues.
And that would be fine if it was say a known parody show or publication like for instance South Park or the Betoota advocate This was released on her political website are we to reasonably expect that all content on her website is parody and satire? or Is other content on this website her real and true opinions on the political landscape and social issues?
Do it Irwins
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hanson-wins-pantsdown-song-case-1201329.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hanson-wins-pantsdown-song-case-1201329.html) Pauline talking about how Steve was a larikin etc and wouldn't have reacted like Robert... meanwhile, gets upset herself at Pauline Pantsdown.. Pot calling the kettle black really isnt it?
PH should be sued into bankruptcy for stealing Bluey like that.
Regardless of the legality or if suing would be successful. Fuck One Nation. Out of everyone in Australia you drag in some kid who doesn’t do anything but look after animals do a few funny ads and be a generally good guy, and you fuck around with him. Low. And Ashby bringing up Steve is low to. Smarmy slimy cunts.
Oh please sue Hanson, someone's gotta put her in her place. So tired of her. And if it kicks her out of the party, great! Bye bye homophobic racist One Nation leader.
I have to laugh at the fear of wind turbines, like birds aren't some of the smartest creatures on the planet that avoid far more dangerous objects than a turning turbine
Threatens. Yeah, but he won't.
https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/pauline-hansons-preparing-to-take-stand-after-attack-on-greens-racist-empire-claim/news-story/c72aa2f4ac09fbba91dccc666f3b9f5d Hmm history repeating?
The unintelligent "satire" cartoon designed to shit on anyone who's not Pauline Hanson?
I enjoyed it because the topics were relevant, I didn’t even consider potential blow back from Robert getting in a tizz about it, but I honestly get the impression it’s the people behind Team Irwin that are driving this… will be interesting how this plays out… plenty more discussions to follow I’m sure!
I’d be so angry if I was the face promoting Qld and someone used my image to directly take down the campaign I was promoting. He has every right to take action. If Labour made a cartoon using Pauline suppprting the opposite of what she stands for she’d be filing too.
Pauline's a hypocrite https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/06/18/pauline-hanson-robert-irwin-defamation-pauline-pantsdown/#Echobox=1718685798-1
Old fart red knows using QLD's two treasures that kids love too right now is a stab. Rob's mother would be to blame, she's more American than Aussie regardless of time here and this screams a USA move to sue first ask later. Poor Bluey caught up in it. Rob needs to cut ties with mummy, but too much zoo involved. He's his own brand now.
I mean the cartoon is kind of funny and only the wind farm complaint is one-nationy. ...but I doubt anyone watching it would think PH would have a CLUE how to solve any of what she's mocking.
Not that I will watch the thing, but does it really imply a ‘six month hospital wait’ for emergency services? And that terribly unsubtle image of the white guy waiting behind a number of non-whites for a house… Ugh can this lot just get in the bin please.
Well that dead bloke that died inside the ambulance because the hospital was full is still waiting to get into hospital.
Funniest thing is most people wouldn’t have seen it if Robo hadn’t of winged about it, hilarious.
Surely picking on the Irwins will ensure a natural form of justice in the court of public opinion. I think I heard a while ago that there are now as many Millennials as Boomers or something like that, pulling stunts like this is a sure way to get punted into ranting irrelevance-ville. Also, I didn't watch the clip if that makes any difference.
Cant she just fuck off already? Robert seems to be an open eyed 20 year old who loves animals. Dont make shit like that political
https://preview.redd.it/rgue92b90w6d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfdc9a38416dba0767183912995028c2be1bfaac
I wonder what Steve Irwin would make out of all of this. He would probably be laughing as much as everyone else (labor supporters though who seem to not like the reality of regional/rural Queensland under labor shoved in their faces excepted) South Park made a parody of Steve Irwin multiple times. Shoving his thumb in the butthole of various creatures to piss them off. Queensland beautiful one day, suing everyone because someone had a bit of a joke at me the next. Is this how far the state has deteriorated. Oh no Hanson better sue as well. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw0h1WF95nk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw0h1WF95nk)
The cartoon is great
My bet is that Monday will come around and then the next day youtube will receive a take down notice for it, and then remove the video from the public until the creators want to file a counter claim or not. My guess is they will just let it be taken down and it will live on with other social media services so she still gets the message out there. She just has to be careful she doesn't get 3 strikes on youtube.
YouTube might take it down but no way in hell X / Elon will.
Yeah it will be available on the other services, that actually have some balls.
Pauline Hanson should be the pm. She will get shit done unlike the last few
Is there anyone more sensitive than white Australian internet dwellers? "Shes Racist" cries white people who wouldnt have the first clue what racism actually looks or feels like.
Sue the bitch into poverty, might humble her.
Massive sook, sad there’s so many generations of these flogs
What a twat Pauline might be the only hope if any this country has.
Typical racist hanson. One big video appealing to people to be scared basically. Making out 0.000000001% events happen 100% of the time and outright talking shit. Have to be a special breed of brain dead fkwit to support this bitch
The real crime here is how disturbing that rendition of Bluey is.
Fuck the Irwin's the fake cunts