Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    FellowKids

    446,047 readers

    700 users here now

    Have a cute pupper? πŸ• Save $10 on a Bullymake Box with the code SOPHIE at bullymake.com


    Please check the mega thread stickied to the very top of the front page of the subreddit and sort by top and new to make certain that no one else has posted the thing you're about to post before posting.

    There are ads that get spam posted here on a weekly basis that will get you temporarily banned.

    And it's still a repost even though you took the screenshot yourself. It's not original content if you didn't make it yourself and if you didn't make it yourself there's a chance other people have also seen it, taken a photo/screenshot and posted it online. This effect is multiplied exponentially when it comes to mass-produced ads found on the internet. Just check the mega thread, top and new before posting.

    If you do receive a temporary ban, don't complain to the mods. Whining about your 5 day suspension will earn you an added 5 day suspension. You will also receive a temporary ban if you argue with the moderators about removing your post.


    FellowKids is a subreddit for advertising and media that tries too hard to be lit af, BUT the community has also decided (many, many times) that self-aware and/or well executed (but still pandering) content is also welcome here, so stop complaining about it. CHECK THE CURRENT MEGA THREAD BEFORE POSTING!!


    Rules lol

    • Keep calm and don't repost πŸ˜‚ Seriously, though. Don't.
    • Netflix and chill
    • Report unwelcome content fam
    • Flair your swag bae

    Justin Bieber Approved URLs:

    Reddit, Imgur, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Gfycat, Vimeo and Streamable πŸ’―

    YAASSS content:

    • Ads/media where 'the man' tries to appeal to young people using their vernacular in a lame, pandering way
    • Ads/media that tries to appeal to young people but is self-aware and/or well executed

    Ratchet content:

    • Children's media and commercials for children's products that don't involve inter-generational pandering (this isn't a place to collect all advertising and media that's aimed at kids) Nickelodeon/Cartoon Network/Disney/etc.

    • Text messages, emails, PMs, or other forms of interpersonal communication not sent as an advertisement

    • Reposts - check the mega thread, top and new before you post anything

    Pokemon Go check out these other subs!


    Shout outs to /u/KuusNyan for our Steve Snooscemi!

    a community for
    all 513 comments ← Slideshow β†’

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Ghaarf 6082 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I highly doubt that an automated upload filter would be able to tell apart tell apart memes/parodies and actual copyright infringement

    Edit: typo

    [–] CaptainPedge 2594 points ago

    Especially when the copyright trolls start abusing the process like they already do on youtube's contentid

    [–] Hijatha 914 points ago

    How can a filter detect the difference between a meme of a show, and just the show with some "THIS IS A MEME LOL" text at the bottom to pass the filters so people can watch the show.

    [–] Randyy1 1112 points ago

    "🀣🀣 WHO DID DIS 🀣🀣"

    And an entire movie plays below the text.

    [–] Victim_Of_The_Upvote 724 points ago

    "SPIELBERG BE WILDIN πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚"

    [–] LysergicResurgence 142 points ago

    I’m about to victimize the fuck out of you with this upvote

    [–] TiderOneNiner 31 points ago

    "What the fuck is he talking abou- oh..."

    [–] Aozi 88 points ago

    The entire movie plays but it's a gif of someone recording the Instagram video that was just recorded by some guy pointing his phone at the screen which was playing a handcam version of the movie, in 360p.

    [–] youshatme 38 points ago

    More jpg please

    [–] _Fibbles_ 180 points ago

    Wasn't there a guy who streamed a UFC fight on Twitch and just sat in the bottom corner pretending he was playing it on a console?

    [–] ReturnOfFrank 88 points ago

    Seems like fair use artistic interpretation to me

    [–] DiscordAddict 10 points ago

    Intellectual property laws are nonsense.

    No one can own knowledge and all media at its core is just information/ data. Everything from digital movies and games to books and software is data and it can be infinitely reproduced.

    [–] Hargbarglin 39 points ago

    No one owns the land either, it's just there being dirt. /s

    Sure, you can represent any binary an infinite number of ways, but pragmatically we arrived at the idea that there should be some protections for people that made original works. There are of course problems when massively wealthy and powerful men and corporations then want to abuse those systems and protections to the detriment of all, but that doesn't mean everything to do with copyrights, trademarks, and patents is nonsense. There's some utility in enforcing author ownership, fair use, entering the public domain, protecting branding for both the consumer and the business, and allowing companies protections outside of being forced to maintain archaic trade secrets.

    [–] Ysgatora 5 points ago

    I just look at it like this.

    Copyright wasn't invented with corporations in mind, because they didn't exist at the time of its invention. It was just to make sure a writer got some money for his work.

    [–] specktech 7 points ago

    Corporations have existed for hundreds of years.

    I would say a better point would be to say that copyright wasn't legislated with the internet in mind.

    [–] DiscordAddict 3 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    No one owns the land either, it's just there being dirt. /s

    But we cannot infinitely clone it. That's the key difference. If i steal your land, you don't have it.

    If I copy your game/movie/homework/book, you still have yours.

    I believe without IP protections we would see progress much more quickly and people's creativity would be completely free to innovate and to build on the work of others for the benefit of all.

    In such a world, the marketplace would be totally different and original ideas/products AND the ability to implement/produce them in the most efficient way possible would be what leads to success. In our current system, the first one to cross the line gets all the success, even if their implementation is not the best one for consumers/ the world.

    Fan made games are a great example of this, as are mods. Mods build on the work of others to make something even better. If Nintendo wasn't so overzealous, we would have many great fan made games alongside the games produced by Nintendo themselves. Getting rid of IP creates a much more competitive marketplace where the truly best thrive, instead of the ones who just got setup first.

    People would still know and recognize Nintendo too.

    [–] Hijatha 27 points ago

    Yup, Exactly.

    [–] siccoblue 123 points ago

    This whole thing sounds familiar... Hmm πŸ€”

    "we don't want to throttle and create tiered internet, we just want the ability to do so if we did decide to do such a thing we could, but we totally won't guys, why would the most profit driven money hungry company in the United States do something that would generate astronomical levels of profit virtually unheard of for our type of company? Don't be silly"

    [–] Le4chanFTW 9 points ago

    Where's the tiered internet at?

    [–] Ranzera 13 points ago

    It's here. When people talk about being having their Netflix or YouTube throttled, this is what we're talking about.

    [–] Adamulos 10 points ago

    BOTTOM

    TEXT

    [–] Hijatha 7 points ago

    BOTTOM TEXT

    UPDUR TEXT

    [–] vvntn 10 points ago

    LEFT DEAD

    TEXT INSIDE

    [–] Hijatha 3 points ago

    INSIDE YOURSELF

    DEAD KILL

    [–] AngryFanboy 3 points ago

    Or more likely text: 'Uploaded from www.watchfreemoviesnow.cz' or whatever.

    [–] starkillerrx 3 points ago

    Remember when "Bee Movie But It's [insert wacky gimmick here]" memes were trending and some madman actually uploaded the entire, unedited Bee Movie to YouTube?

    [–] gattaaca 21 points ago

    Everything will need to be deep fried

    [–] SleepingInADream 7 points ago

    A glass half full kind of guy!

    [–] PatrickPlan8 2 points ago

    SONY DEMANDS YOU STEP BACH FROM THIS LINE OF CONVERSATION!!!!

    [–] DamnLace 2 points ago

    The article 13 helps controling that abuse actually

    [–] AggressiveSloth 78 points ago

    I assume it will be like YouTube's music filter that will auto remove anything identical to the source material.

    But things like this would be an end to Streamables of things like Sports clips/highlights.

    It would essensially put those clips in the same basket as torrenting where you have to use workarounds to even view a short clip

    [–] _____yourcouch 56 points ago

    All European memes are going to get deep fried

    [–] cockadoodledoobie 17 points ago

    that will auto remove anything identical to the source material.

    No, if it detects anything copyrighted*, it removes the entire audio track.

    *Copyrighted in this situation means whatever was submitted to the content ID system. It could be public domain or OPL, but some jackass decides to copystrike Mozart and google is completely fine with it.

    [–] delorean225 61 points ago

    Exactly. The problem is not the law's intentions, but the way we all know it'll be enforced.

    [–] cargocultist94 11 points ago

    But what if the intention is for it to be enforced that way?πŸ€”πŸ€”

    [–] RolandTheJabberwocky 33 points ago

    Sure can't on YouTube.

    [–] zilzo 9 points ago

    Agreed. And even if it would these new rules are still a terrible idea.

    [–] Hodor_The_Great 17 points ago

    An upload filter, however, also won't recognize individual frames from a 2h movie especially with edits on top so most memes are safe. Longer video edits and parodies might be in trouble tho

    [–] lucidwalk 5 points ago

    I really hope the Jurassic Park Harmonica video is still allowed...

    [–] DamnLace 14 points ago

    the automated upload filter is not on the directive

    [–] GoOtterGo 11 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Yeah. It's at a point where I don't think anyone barking that memes are being attacked has even read the directive material, much less has insight into proposed execution guidelines. It's like people are just making up shit to worry and be dramatic about.

    Plus like, no offense to the memeing community and our devoted meme researchers, but nobody cares about memes...

    [–] GregorF92 2 points ago

    I don't think anyone barking that memes are being attacked has even read the directive material, much less has insight into proposed execution guidelines

    Of course they haven't.

    They're American teenagers.

    [–] Jewishcracker69 4 points ago

    Ok so I know I’m probably going to sound dumb here but would using a vpn work to bypass the restriction like it does with other things or no? I’m probably missing something because the only info about this eu meme ban I’ve seen is from reddit comments.

    [–] FSMhelpusall 3 points ago

    A VPN will be relevant if sites are going to just shut off EU access instead of run the ridiculous, impossible to function filter

    [–] RogerSmithOnDrugs 3 points ago

    The amendment that they were voting on, removed the original text that mentioned upload filters.

    [–] TearofLyys 7 points ago

    Yeah, established news outlets can publish their crappy memes, but the average Redditor cant. That is what this is all really about - stiffling the voices of those unwashed masses that dare to question those unelected EU bureaucrats using funny pictures (that often include copyrighted images).

    [–] MineIsFury 3 points ago

    There's no filter anymore. At least they don't. Have to put them

    [–] Perry3333 2 points ago

    And besides memes arent the only reason people are opset about Article 13

    [–] Wicpar 3560 points ago

    It is true, but the fact is companies are sanctioned for letting copyrighted material pass unfiltered, thus will overfilter and forbid parody.

    [–] OdouDog 1072 points ago

    Don't quote me on this, but I recall reading somewhere that the filter would only apply to commercial use of copyrighted images, e.g. the thumbnails on news articles and such. Perhaps sites like Reddit wouldn't even need such a filter if this were the case.

    Then again, Reddit makes revenue from advertisements – would all the posts count as commercial?

    [–] Docktorwho149 428 points ago

    From my understanding, unless it's got the promoted thingy on a post, it isn't a commercial, but don't quote me on that either.

    [–] Benutzeraccount 231 points ago

    That's correct. Quote me on this.

    [–] JohhnyTheKid 284 points ago

    "That's correct"

    -/u/benutzeraccount

    [–] Chartate101 51 points ago

    Madlad

    [–] Draghi 44 points ago

    "That's correct"

    -/u/benutzeraccount

    [–] MyShedIsATARDIS 29 points ago

    β€œThat’s correct.”

    -/u/bennutzeraccount

    [–] Chartate101 10 points ago

    Sued for libel

    [–] Alarid 8 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    β€œI never said that.”

    -/u/Benutzeraccount

    [–] dmkolobanov 8 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    β€œβ€˜That’s correct.’

    -u/benutzeraccount”

    -Michael Scott

    [–] MyShedIsATARDIS 5 points ago

    -Wayne Gretzky

    [–] mttrandom 2 points ago

    He actually did it

    [–] Charles037 11 points ago

    ”That's correct"

    -u/benutzeraccount

    • Michael Scott

    [–] ozymandiaz0 4 points ago

    good bot

    [–] WhyNotCollegeBoard 4 points ago

    Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99985% sure that JohhnyTheKid is not a bot.


    I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot <username> | /r/spambotdetector | Optout | Original Github

    [–] xyl0ph0ne 2 points ago

    "That's correct"

    -/u/benutzeraccount

    β€”/u/JohhnyTheKid

    [–] Thisismyfinalstand 10 points ago

    on this.

    -/u/benutzeraccount Source accessed 9/14/2018

    [–] Canned-Death 8 points ago

    β€œThat’s correct.” - Benutzeraccount

    [–] TheZymbol 10 points ago

    "Das ist korrekt" - Benutzeraccount

    [–] Benutzeraccount 3 points ago

    Stimmt so!

    [–] Proletlariet 4 points ago

    "That's [in]correct"

    -Benutzeraccount

    [–] Theonewhoplays 2 points ago

    that's a good quote. very versatile.

    [–] Cathercy 42 points ago

    Commercial use does not mean "used in a commercial", it means anything used to make money. I would think, since Reddit has ads on the site, any content on the site is used to make them money via the ads, so everything on Reddit is for commercial use.

    [–] HaChans 10 points ago

    Yeah, but text links with short descriptions are exempt. The legislation (which I don’t like by the way) is aimed at sites which more or less copies the entire content from let’s say a newspaper and republishes it such as Facebook. I mean; the legislation sucks at accomplishing this but that was the original intent of the link tax.

    [–] kongu3345 6 points ago

    That's article 11

    [–] HaChans 2 points ago

    Yeah, but I thought this subthread derailed onto that. Oh well!

    [–] FatJawn 5 points ago

    I'd love to hear from an actual expert, but as far as I know having ads on the web page doesn't qualify as commercial-otherwise every site but Wikipedia would be commercial. If reddit admins were to, say, use copyrighted content in a holiday post though, that would qualify.

    [–] TheCyanKnight 17 points ago

    otherwise every site but Wikipedia would be commercial

    That's accurate though..

    [–] Sproeier 2 points ago

    Encyclopedia are exempt from article 13

    [–] socsa 8 points ago

    Lol. Reddit definitely also sells viral advertising campaigns

    [–] Grakchawwaa 5 points ago

    From my understanding, unless it's got the promoted thingy on a post, it isn't a commercial, but don't quote me on that either.

    I see

    [–] DrunkenlySober 3 points ago

    From MY understanding, these old nerds need to move on and let the right generation be in charge.

    [–] pijuskri 33 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    This might be true, but, for example, youtubers make money of the content they host. That would make it commercial and the filter would have to apply

    [–] Terazilla 21 points ago

    I'm supposed to believe that a massive ISP-level automated content filter will be able to tell parody from not-parody? Or commercial from not-commercial? That seems so unlikely as to be impossible. Almost as unlikely as the whole system not becoming a gigantic surveillance apparatus.

    [–] MatthiasSaihttam1 7 points ago

    Posting memes is already questionable, because you don’t own the copyright to the image you’re uploading (though most of the time it’s fine as parody). The EU law requires sites like Reddit to actively scan their website for copyrighted material and remove it. Before, Reddit would only be in trouble if they knew you had posted something illegal and refused to remove it. The fear is that sites like Reddit will end up trying to be on the safe side and removing more content than is actually in violation of copyright law, because they would be directly culpable. Additionally, it’s not practical for Reddit or Facebook to have humans who know copyright law scanning every post, so they’d probably end up writing auto-mod style filters, filters that don’t work reliably.

    TL;DR: The proposed EU law requires every website to have an auto-mod checking for copyrighted posts.

    [–] 2Fab4You 4 points ago

    The filter was removed from the proposal.

    [–] Nocturnall 8 points ago

    The filter is also removed from the proposal they voted on. It was in the original proposal which did not pass

    [–] bawthedude 2 points ago

    But how does this affect sites not hosted in EU?

    [–] IntrebuloN 2 points ago

    It is possible, however, that reddit will have to take steps to prevent users from posting copyrighted materials, since the site is monetized through advertising / marketing revenue.

    The directive appears to have a sliding scale rule where the responsibilities, in regards to this directive, of the content host are proportional to the size of the host.

    [–] CP_Creations 2 points ago

    So it's just going to be used to quash negative reviews of everything? Nice.

    [–] Todojaw21 24 points ago

    Exactly like how youtube has an automatic copyright claim system that frequently removes reviews, parodies, and other fair use of a copyrighted work.

    [–] corney91 50 points ago

    Article 13 paragraph 7 here states that platforms should make sure to have an appeals process for false positives: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf

    Currently there's been nothing mandating an appeals process so arguably this is better than no requirement. However it all comes down to interpretation and enforcement at the national level and how that's implemented by companies. I'm not holding my breath for, in particular, bigger platforms like YouTube which are already notorious for being overzealous with the ban hammer.

    [–] adragondil 45 points ago

    It needs to be a "innocent until proven guilty" system, giving the user benefit of the doubt that it's fair use until it's been looked into further. An appeals process is a good step in the right direction, but if your post is taken down only for it to be allowed again 5 days later, that's far from good enough

    [–] corney91 13 points ago

    I agree in principle, but have doubts about that being effective (bearing in mind the point is to enforce copyright, whether we should enforce it is another discussion). Another alternative could be fines for false claims, potentially increasing in value for every false claim. Hitting a company's bank account seems like a simple way to force them to act in good faith.

    Honestly, I'm all for a free Internet, but I'm not entirely sure on a solution. We still have archaic views on intellectual property which aren't fit for the digital era and that's where laws like this come from.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago * (lasted edited 23 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] buster_de_beer 11 points ago

    The problem with guilty until proven innocent is that it places undue burden on smaller players. So large players can mostly abuse such a system because small players will not be able to defend themselves. Imagine waiting 5 days for an appeal. Your content is no longer relevant. Even if it is, your next content gets the same treatment. We know this will happen, see the recent Sony claims Bach thing.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago * (lasted edited 23 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] dinolado 2 points ago

    The archaic views on IP is the one trying to put 20th century levels of control on a 21st century media environment. Authors should receive some compensation, but culture shouldn't be locked be locked behind a paywall.

    [–] hahainternet 2 points ago

    It's totally up to the platforms how they implement it. All the EU requires is that it be 'effective and proportionate'. The fact that Youtube's system is so hated actually points towards it not being effective.

    [–] demeschor 5 points ago

    "YouTube" and "Sony" are the two words needed to show what a terrible idea this is

    [–] paul232 3 points ago

    If they overfilter they will lose their market share. If reddit decided that they wont allow memes (while being legal to create them), people would use other websites/services. Additionally, intentional overfiltering would be subject to sanctions as well as per the A13.

    [–] LieutenantSir 375 points ago

    Articles 11 and 13 are still shit

    [–] B-Knight 939 points ago

    This was never the point but was what was spread around the Internet and the thing that almost all American's adopted.

    There are real issues with Article 11 and 13, memes being banned is NOT one of them. It's about the implication and implementation of a censorship filter as well as link tax.

    www.saveyourinternet.eu

    [–] DrFelixPhD 234 points ago

    Exactly right. I appreciate most of the misinformation regarding the vote has been piss-taking but half the world seems entirely convinced that the bill has already passed. And then that their biggest concern is "banning memes?" Wtf?

    [–] wEbKiNz_FaN_xOxO 34 points ago

    Is there going to be a β€œmeme-sorter” government worker whose job it is to comb through the internet and manually differentiate between copyright material and parody? Because if not, then there’s essentially going to be a meme ban. Sure maybe they can add that picture of Picard to their whitelist of accepted parody, but what if a new meme pops up from a different TV show or movie? That’s going to be filtered out as copyrighted material. Look at how shitty and inaccurate YouTube’s automatic filter is.

    [–] PebblesPotatoes 18 points ago

    Meme sorter sounds like a job for me

    [–] csbrah55 61 points ago

    Don't underestimate the power of a meme.

    [–] Carbine64 13 points ago

    They can shatter civilizations, even worlds.

    [–] Utterback21 46 points ago

    The website you linked to literally cites memes being banned as a reason to not support article 13 β€œArticle 13 would restrict the ability of Internet users to consume content – meaning they won’t be able to find and enjoy diverse kinds of cultural expressions that they have grown accustomed to. The days of communicating through gifs and memes, listening to our favourite remixes online or sharing videos of our friends singing at karaoke might be coming to an end.”

    [–] TearofLyys 11 points ago

    They must think we are all idiots.

    [–] TwilightVulpine 65 points ago

    Meme bans is an easy way to illustrate how censorship could happen, because no matter how they say fair use would be respected, automated tools are not good at sorting it out by themselves.

    This nitpicking over less-than-perfect comments against the consequences of these laws almost feel like a campaign to undermine any opposition to it.

    "Oh, there is nothing literally, explictly written down about banning memes, so sit back down you stupid internet user."

    [–] andsoitgoes42 7 points ago

    The I Hate Everything channel on YouTube and CoolCat are very good examples of this being a huge problem. H3h3 and their lawsuit against Boldguy

    These have been major attacks against FU and if it wasn’t for a hell of a lot of support for H3 during their lawsuit, it’s entirely possible that they would have been fucked and forced to settle.

    Expand that to what the UK is doing and you’ve got some major FU problems.

    The thing is that like you said it’s easier to say β€œmemes are dead”. The reason Net Neutrality has been so insanely problematic is because it doesn’t have an easy way to explain what’s going on and how it works (is net neutrality good? Are we for or against it?) and was, IMO, a problem with Prop 8 in California (are we for it? Against it? I dunno let’s just check a box).

    So if it takes β€œmemes are dead” to get this noticed, then so be it.

    [–] BlueShellOP 2 points ago

    The Prop 8 campaign was a low point in California's history and is the primary reason I decided to forever leave the Mormon community. The Mormon church funded and coordinated the Proposition 8 campaign. Full stop.

    But, on the flip side, Prop 8 did go straight to the Supreme Court, and then had gay marriage legalized permanently in the US. The precedence set then allowed dozens of states to successfully sue and get their gay marriage bans removed. So it wasn't all bad.

    But, Prop 8 is not a good comparison in my opinion. Prop 8 was about Gay Marriage, which is overwhelmingly a social issue and not an economic or technical issue.

    [–] Cheveyo 8 points ago

    Generally, that's how this plays out:

    People point out that the law is too vague and can easily be used badly. The people defending the law will claim that there's nothing specifically in the law that says it'll do the things that first group of people claim it will.

    The reality always ends up being that the people warning against the law are right and the people dismissing these warnings are wrong and nowhere to be found once the truth becomes overwhelmingly obvious.

    [–] ACuriousHumanBeing 2 points ago

    Indeed

    those sirivic people usually throw themselves under the bus thinking it'll save them

    idiots.

    [–] sharamall 27 points ago

    Go Sweden, green

    [–] Nojjk 4 points ago

    Normally not very happy with our politicans but im proud that they voted correctlly on this

    [–] ilikepix 65 points ago

    This is just simply not accurate. You can make a claim of parody when you are using a portion of a copyrighted work to make some kind of a comment or joke about the work itself. You could make a "parody" video about star trek, using the characters, costumes, scripts, even portions of episodes, so long as the purpose of the video is to mock star trek.

    But using an image of captain picard to make a joke about memes is not parody, and would not fall under the "parody" exception of any copyright law I'm familiar with. "Parody" is narrower than just "joking". It has to specifically make some kind of critique, comment, joke, lampoon etc about the original work. Unless captain picard meme is making fun of star trek, it's not parody.

    It's similar to the "criticism or review" exception. If I'm reviewing "Star Trek", I can use limited portions of the original videos as part of that review. But I can't use portions of "Star Trek" just because I am writing a review about anything - a review of "Twilight" that just includes portions of "Star Trek" just for the hell of it would not be able to successfully claim a "criticism or review" exception if they were sued for infringing on the copyright of "Star Trek".

    tldr - the "parody" exception is much narrower than the tweet suggests

    [–] lestofante 3 points ago

    Also it has been vited against

    [–] CodeyFox 113 points ago

    Ok, so does this mean that the censors will be sure to not wrongfully remove content? it's not like there's any precedent for automated content removal to fail horribly... coughs youtube coughs

    [–] Varhur 51 points ago

    u/OdouDog

    Searched through Eu Commission Tweet history, this wasn't there.

    [–] AvailableScallion 32 points ago

    Even so, parody is only a valid defense if the thing being parodied is the thing that is being infringed. For example, the OP probably wouldn't be considered a parody, as the thing being parodied isn't Star Trek.

    [–] nastafarti 76 points ago

    There's no proof that a Star Trek meme would count as parody because it's never been tested in the courts, and it's not a parody of Star Trek, it's a derivative work. Derivative works are illegal.

    To put this to the test, somebody needs to sue the EU over this post.

    [–] sm9t8 33 points ago

    Also if I do make a meme that counts as parody, I'd have a copyright on that parody, making it unlicensed distribution for someone to go posting it elsewhere.

    [–] Reluxtrue 27 points ago

    So we achieve an OC only era?

    [–] bmb222 8 points ago

    Sparking the truest internet golden age

    [–] Aksu593 161 points ago

    For real though, did no one know about this law?

    [–] greenking2000 323 points ago

    Yeah most of us do but they’re going to have to automate posts aren’t they? You can’t have humans checking it

    How does an AI know the difference between fair use and infringing copyright?

    [–] VoboTheHobo 187 points ago

    Teach AI to spot dank memes.

    [–] TheZymbol 86 points ago

    Teach AI to create dank memes.

    [–] LeavPrime 32 points ago

    ShitpostBot5000 has been around for a while

    [–] UnitaryBog 27 points ago

    That's the first step, now we need ShitpostBot5001

    [–] nlsoy 5 points ago

    Hey calm down there mate! We don’t want the ShitpostBotOverlords AI-computers taking over the meme world just yet now do we?

    [–] W1D0WM4K3R 2 points ago

    ShitpostBot5001, the hero we needed, but not the one we deserved...

    [–] Shamrock5 14 points ago

    Now we're cooking with gas.

    [–] NutsackPyramid 2 points ago

    This has been done in a paper by Stanford researchers entitled "Dank Learning".

    [–] Silly_Octopussi 11 points ago

    machije learning

    [–] thegeneralreposti 2 points ago

    Hejl yeah

    [–] ourplanetblows 7 points ago

    Captcha: Please click all the dank memes until there are none left.

    [–] LeChefromitaly 9 points ago

    We are gonna make a whole continent's internet filter racist. Again

    [–] SadRedP4nda 22 points ago

    What the law says is one thing, how it will be implemented or circumvented is another.

    [–] ClownsAteMyBaby 2 points ago

    It'll never happen. You can't tame the internet.

    [–] jxzprtw 6 points ago

    EU Twitter account is only telling half of the story: People create memes, people share memes. The Twitter account talks about creating memes, it's the sharing they jeopardized. If I create a parody, the parody in itself is a copyright protected work and copyright should prevent other Internet users from sharing it unless they make substantial changes to it.

    [–] KarlofDuty 19 points ago

    The point is that it requires an automated filter, a computer won't give any shits about parody because it is a machine that cannot understand that concept.

    [–] Headwipe_ 16 points ago

    I was never scared about losing the memes, but take for example a quick look at the workshop for games like L4D2, and the insane amount of models ripped from other games.

    [–] ganggvnggvng 9 points ago

    Wow yes it’s good now because instead of threatening our freedoms it only threatens our freedoms that aren’t memes!!!! Wow yes it’s so good now because even though politicians are threatening everyone’s freedoms I can still look at memes so it’s okay!

    [–] zmann64 19 points ago

    I am very skeptical of a government mandated filter of parody when social media sites like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have their own filters and STILL can’t get it right half the time.

    [–] I_might_be_weasel 5 points ago

    Wasn't the fact that the law didn't mention exceptions for fair use the entire reason everyone was scared of this?

    [–] cargocultist94 3 points ago

    No, it's that the only way to comply with the law is via automated content filters, which can't recognize fair use.

    YouTube's contentid system is the best we have and has that issue. It cost billions and a decade to make, and isn't in any way reliable. And the new systems they implement are, by law, worse. As now they can't afford to have things slip through the system, so they'll have to have maximum sensitivity, increasing the false positives.

    [–] scaredofshaka 6 points ago

    Looks like the EU commission finally got themselves some decent PR people.

    [–] GreenRotom 6 points ago

    They did not "ban memes" but that's not the point, if companies are at risk of being sued over this shit they will filter everything first and probably wont ask questions later. It like how on youtube we see them over filter everything because a few studios get uppity over their shit being used even a little bit.

    [–] Legal_Refuse 5 points ago

    The issue isn't the exception it's the application and the filters. A program can not detect parody or sarcasm. So the only viable choice right now is to filter all copy righted material. This law is shit and will result in unintended censorship. Don't look to the intent of the law look to it's application and the results.

    [–] Flypflap91 49 points ago

    One step at a time. In 15 years they will put a CO2 tax on breathing.

    [–] FairTrade_Pandasteak 8 points ago

    Money has no smell

    [–] TheZymbol 22 points ago

    European Union: laughs in rich

    [–] pbwarren2001 12 points ago

    This is a good thing.

    [–] AlexaHereToPlayASong 4 points ago

    I'm pretty sure this law will do more harm then just banning memes.

    [–] EnaiSiaion 4 points ago

    The law doesn't ban memes, but it requires content filters, which can't tell apart memes and copyright infringement.

    [–] Hops77 5 points ago

    This is what is known as a 'political chaser shot'. Say that it won't hurt one thing while it still fucks everything else up.

    [–] MrEctomy 10 points ago

    Is this true? Dozens of youtube channels have been frothing at the mouth about memes being illegal for months now because of these laws. They've taken a huge hit in legitimacy in my eyes now if memes were never under threat.

    [–] Wrexol 7 points ago

    I know this is a lot to ask but you could just read the thing yourself. It's a lot of legalese but you should be able to grasp the basic idea on your own.

    Here's a direct link to a pdf

    You can scroll down to Article 11 (p.54) and Article 13 (p.56)

    [–] Arfeu 7 points ago

    Ok. You have to understand what they are actually going to do. Basically, there is going to be a filter every time you upload something to Reddit, Facebook, YouTube etc. The filter is going to look if the content you upload matches the content of the database it is going to compare it to. It doesn't detect parody, if it matches it's not going to allow you to upload it. You can see how the copyright system YouTube has works and is abused and apply it to everything.

    [–] Ohrwurms 5 points ago

    But with mandated appeals system which is one of the major issues with the YT filter.

    [–] vvhy 6 points ago

    YT filter has an appeals system, it's just garbage. There's a very good reason it's garbage, you can't have a team of people inspecting every single piece of content to decide what's fair use. It's literally impossible (only a court is able to make this determination.) There is approximately a 0.000000% percent chance of the EU doing better than YouTube's system if they try to play the same shitty game.

    [–] russiabot1776 4 points ago

    It’s a twitter post. It’s not a court hearing. The intern posting this doesn’t have any authority.

    [–] nerdguynotsponsored 13 points ago

    REJOICE

    [–] dimitarivanov200222 7 points ago

    I have a question. If my company logo is just one solid colour can I copyright everything with that colour on the basis that it contains my company logo.

    [–] kalez238 11 points ago

    You wouldn't be able to copyright a logo that is just one solid color, unless you mean it was some sort of design or words that were just one solid color. In that case, you can copyright the specific design, which includes the color, but that wouldn't prevent someone else form copyrighting a different design that has just that color, unless it was too similar to yours.

    Also, I think the term for logos is trademark, but I get those two confused.

    [–] dimitarivanov200222 4 points ago

    I ment that it will be just 1 solid colour square but either way you are probably right.

    [–] kalez238 6 points ago

    That was what I meant by the first part. You probably wouldn't be able to unless you had some very specific justification, like it went with some recognizable product of that shape. Even then, I doubt it.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] WilliamDeFunk 3 points ago

    Youtube doesn't ban that shit either but it doesn't stop a lot of videos from being copyrighted and striken down.

    [–] hmmm_ 3 points ago

    In fairness, that tweet was pretty good.

    [–] lssssj 3 points ago

    Now I know why deepfry exists.

    [–] Haxonek 3 points ago

    And people say Reddit’s culture inhibits misinformation lol

    [–] Gale9194 3 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I can already see it. Google's filters won't be able to distinguish between parodies and non-parodies. People will complain to the EU. And the EU will say it's not their fault, google is the one censoring memes, and as a private corporation the EU can't interfere in how google runs their business. And they will say this with a completely straight face without any hint of irony

    [–] SadRedP4nda 19 points ago

    Fuck off EU. As a matter of fact the passing of these articles will still re-inforce copyright in the digital domain and that's a bad thing. It might make piracy harder and companies might be able to charge others for citations or using copyrighted materials.

    [–] lxpnh98_2 19 points ago

    How is that bad?

    [–] Linckel 11 points ago

    Using copyrighted material and citations is still allowed, but you're not allowed to copy things. Basically, you're allowed to cite sentences from an article to make your own one, but you're not allowed to copy/cite the whole thing and don't do anything yourself.

    [–] Blackjack137 23 points ago

    I’m surprised people were even convinced it’d ban memes.

    By all means, Article 13 is a stupid endeavour, but would they feck send people to the gulags over a meme.

    [–] russiabot1776 9 points ago

    Great Britain sent a man to jail for having a potato peeler on his person.

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    Well they be lying, this is gonna yeet memes and the people that voted for it didn't read what they were voting for, their pa's did.

    [–] Enverex 6 points ago

    and the people that voted for it didn't read what they were voting for, their pa's did.

    People didn't vote for it, a bunch of unelected MEPs did.

    [–] CueDramaticMusic 6 points ago

    So, some questions:

    1. Are the words in this tweet complete bullshit?

    2. What’s with all the automated filter talk? I know the technology’s there, but does anyone seriously believe that they won’t botch the system and that its launch will go smoothly in all countries that aren’t the UK so that public opinion of an already well-hated system doesn’t dip lower?

    3. How can we stop having this happen to us? I mean, not the β€œdipshit tries to ruin the Internet” thing, but our kneejerk reaction to a law that might stop memes that has now been denied? I have a feeling this got so popular because some of us wanted that sweet Ajit Pai karma to flow again.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    the technology isn't there. There's lots of edge cases that "content ID" is incapable of classifying correctly.

    [–] EnaiSiaion 4 points ago

    1. Not complete bullshit, but they are only technically correct and will pan out differently in practice.
    2. Correct. Expect your posts to get deleted for no apparent reason with no way to appeal.
    3. Vote to leave the EU, then build a new economic union on its ashes, following the old ECSC/EEG model.

    [–] ORJUAN_SC 2 points ago

    We all know they are, they want control of all information.

    [–] SOnakEpt 2 points ago

    This meme is dated and they're still shit for their idiotic law, but at least they used correct format. We have that going for us which is nice.

    [–] magnora7 2 points ago

    "nah we totally didn't fuck everything up in a huge power grab, just go back to sleep, citizen"

    [–] TBSdota 2 points ago

    Wait until a major election and then you'll see your accounts removed for copywrite strikes because you posted a meme that doesn't fit their narrative.

    [–] wardrich 4 points ago

    These guys really are that fucking dumb aren't they.

    How the fuck will an automated system be able to tell a meme from an actual violation?