The Ambiguous Status of Memes and Parody under the Copyright Act, 1957

ABSTRACT
Internet memes have changed online communication by creating new forms of humor, satire, criticism, and social commentary. Memes are now used across social media platforms such as to communicate political, cultural and social ideas. However, memes often rely on copyrighted images, videos, or other content that already exists, which creates a legal uncertainty about their status under copyright law. This issue becomes significant in India, where copyright law functions under the narrow doctrine of fair dealing under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, unlike the broader American doctrine of fair use. Since parody is not mentioned as an exception under Indian copyright law, there is ambiguity about whether internet memes can be protected as parody.
This research paper examines whether internet memes can qualify as parody under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act. The paper uses a doctrinal research methodology along with a comparative analysis of Indian and American copyright law. It analyzes statutory provisions, judgements and existing literature about copyright infringement, fair dealing, parody and transformative use. Indian cases such as Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma and Chancellor Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Narendra Publishing House are referred to understand the judicial interpretation of criticism and commentary, which is relevant to memes. This paper also has references to American cases such as Griner v. King and Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith to compare the treatment of memes and parody under the doctrine of fair use in America, which is broader.
The research has discovered that memes cannot be classified only into acts of unauthorized use of copyrighted material, because they transform original works by adding humor, criticism or other such commentary. While Indian courts have shown some flexibility in interpreting fair dealing, the absence of clear recognition of parody in copyright law creates a legal ambiguity for meme creators and users. The paper concludes that internet memes should, where it is deemed necessary, qualify as parody and fair dealing under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, especially when they transform the original work to a great extent and serve a clearly different purpose from the material they use. The study further highlights the need for clear judicial interpretation and reform in laws to address newer challenges created by the internet’s evolving nature.