Whilst in America they have legislation entitled “Fair Use” which is very commonly hidden in the description of many youtube videos, Australia has “Fair Trading” laws which allows content to be used in cases of research/study (yep thats me), criticism or review, news reporting and parody/satire.

I had no idea that ‘parody’ was a legitimate legal defence in the context of copyright law. Of course music will always trigger a copyright warning on youtube the content itself can be adapted/re-enacted and reworked into a satirical skit. And any judge will be cool with it.

I assumed that there were simply too many cases already existing on youtube to tackle through the legal system, which is slow at the best of times. With the hundreds of Taylor Swift parodies sitting there where the hell do we even start? (“hell Sarg, I don’t know, lets just go get donuts instead”. But they’re actually allowed to be there, no matter how annoying they are. Of course unless the music is too similar or too substantial to the original, then you’re in strife.

The example of the parody of the famously embarrassing “Where the Bloody Hell Are You” tourism campaign being challenged by the law (god that ad is cringe-worthy) its satirical nature means that it’s still up there, mocking the director, producer and of course Laura Bingle. Maybe the parody would’ve done a better job at attracting tourists? At least then people would know we had a sense of humour.