ARTICLE
11 September 2025

The Meme Paradox: Where LOLs Meet Legal Liabilities

Ka
Khurana and Khurana

Contributor

Khurana and Khurana logo
K&K is among leading IP and Commercial Law Practices in India with rankings and recommendations from Legal500, IAM, Chambers & Partners, AsiaIP, Acquisition-INTL, Corp-INTL, and Managing IP. K&K represents numerous entities through its 9 offices across India and over 160 professionals for varied IP, Corporate, Commercial, and Media/Entertainment Matters.
Explore Firm Details
The legend of humour, satire and social comments of the era of the digital age is memes. They constitute the fast, witty and often absurd pictures...
India Intellectual Property
Khurana And Khurana
Your Author LinkedIn Connections

The legend of humour, satire and social comments of the era of the digital age is memes. They constitute the fast, witty and often absurd pictures, GIFs and videos, we use to frame all it takes to say about a ordinary political opinion to the fundamental, familiar suffering of a Monday morning. The resulting ability to share memes and discover them online has resulted in memes becoming far beyond a niche internet phenomenon with creators and brands alike taking advantage of memes to reach scale and gain attention equally. Their success would be coupled to the improper attentional style of the modern day internet user who would upon waking up like and share visual content instead of reading texts. Memes are just a new form of expression, aren t they Yes people use them to mock politicians and celebrities, comment upon a social issue, parody pop culture, and communicate the shared fun as well. This gives them right to be a form of speech when they are transformative, original or parodic. However, in the nature of such output seemingly innocent and unintentional result of this kind of expression is a legal paradox. Despite the fact that memes are successful as a result of free exchange of ideas and images, they appear to be successful in the locations where they infringe on the rights of others, through plagiar å criting materials without consulting licenses. This opposes in a competitive fashion the ethos of Internet creation and the ethos of the intellectual property law principles. Take the plunge with me into the Legal Gray Areas on this post, we can examine how such a breach of copyright has come to demean the makers of memes, whether there is the concept of fair use, followed by some historic cases that have lent form to this debate since it was just a joke and now it is a full fledged case to ensure that we understand how the meme and copyright have interacted in this world which has not only stepped up its digitization process and maintained its pace.

It is imperative to classify memes in order to determine the legal issues. There are two main dividing categories of Memes, to which Memes can belong, Original Memes and Derivative Memes. Original Memes are the ones that were developed by the author herself without a referral to any photos, illustrations, or videos. These memes are less prone to copyright issues in that the first owner of the intellectual property is the creator of the original work. The creator reserves the right in regard to the work and it enjoys protection as an artistic work such as in Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 of India. This is a rather uncontroversial process, which is due to the ability of the memer to own the rights related to the content which they make out of their personal talent and labor. It is the Derivative Memes that the legal minefield starts. They are done with previously owned/pre-existing images, GIFs, and video clips. When one takes a shot of a film, a picture of a celebrity, or even a work of classic art and adds text or modifies it, he/she will produce a piece based upon a copyrighted work. The major legal issue that arises in this case is does this derivative work constitute a new transformation to the extent that it is a new work or is it a derivative infringing copy? According to the legal system, a meme that takes a lot of elements of a copyrighted work without any substantial transformative element can be regarded as the infringement of the copyright. The test propounded is whether the modification brings out a new, original expression or it just reproduces the original one. Considering them as a kind of copying of other work, process or reproduction, the widely recognized meme is actually defined as an original work rather than a copy of something or a reproduction.Indian copyright act Section 2(c) contantly notes a meme to be as a kind of artistic work. Nevertheless, sharing or reproducing a meme using a copyrighted work and doing so without the permission of the copyright owner may be an infringing copy, potentially exposing the creator to liability, as defined in Section 2(m)(i). It is worth mentioning that the copyright law guards both the motion picture and all the other elements of the work including still photographs. As such, development of a meme, such as the use of a still image taken out of a movie, has to be followed by prior permission granted by the owner of the copyright of the proceeding. Here the doctrine of fair use comes as an important defense to the creators. However, the reproduction or the distribution of a meme based on authorship of work subject to the copyright could be considered an infringing copy as per the Section 2(m)(i), and an author may be subject to the liability. It is notable that the copyright law extends to the motion picture and all other aspects of the specified work such as still photos. It should therefore be the case that a meme on a movie screenshot, e.g., be followed by a previous agreement on the part of copyright owner of the said material. This is through which emergence of the doctrine of fair use has come in as a significant safeguard to the creators. Meme-makers are likely to invoke copyrighted work under the fair use or fair dealing defence. This doctrine executed under section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act introduces exceptions in the context of copyright infringement which allows to make limited use of copyrighted material in form that approximates criticism, commentary, or the nature of news reporting, parody or education purposes. The point being to strike a balance between the rights of the protection of a creator, and the right to the freedom of expression that is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Fair use is a broad terrain that could be subjected to interpretation and further consideration. The Indian courts have identified the legal concept of fair use as a precedent in determining the fair dealing of an act. Courts all over the world such as the Delhi Supreme Court in the matter of India TV v. Yashraj Films, they have got in place a four point test on whether a use is to be considered as a fair use. This is not to be viewed as factors that have to be independently considered as a whole but as an assessment of the situation overall: the Purpose and Character of the Use (is it of a place of business?) the Nature of the Copyrighted Work (is it published?), the Amount and Substantiality of the portion used (is it a minor or major part of the original?) and the Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market for the Original Work (does it degrade the original?). The Madras High Court confirmed this in Blackwood and Son Ltd v. A.N Parasuraman. The justification of the court is that a person should not be able to gain financially at the expense of another. The second detail related to the meaning of the term fair in Fair dealing is that the dealing would be fair unless the motive of the infringer were other than fair, in other words were improper or oblique. Important is the first factor called purpose of use. When they are made with commercial ends in mind instead of entertainment or humor, then there is less likelihood that they would be used as fair use. As an example, an Indian comedy crew, AIB produced funny memes using the pictures on the popular television show, Game of Thrones on HBO not only to pass some time, but promoted the products of companies who had sponsored them. This behavior goes against the spirit of the fair use idea. The nature of the copyrighted work is also a key distinction between published and unpublished works. Memes typically derive from published works, making fair use more defensible, as the original creator has already exhausted their first publication right. The amount and substantiality of the portion used matters greatly; borrowing a minor phrase or joke is less likely to constitute infringement compared to replicating an entire scene or artwork. Finally, the effect on the market value is a critical consideration. If the meme competes with or diminishes the commercial value of the original work, it is unlikely to be protected under fair use. Beyond these four factors, it's crucial to note that fair use is not an absolute shield. The Supreme Court of India, in the case involving the morphed image of Mamata Banerjee, affirmed that "Freedom of expression faces its end when it violates the rights of others." This means memes that violate an individual's fundamental rights, such as their right to privacy or dignity, are not protected by fair use, regardless of their satirical intent. This was seen in the infamous incident of a meme using a face cut-out of Mamata Banerjee, where directions were issued for the removal of the meme alongside an apology letter by the creator.

Although the doctrine of fair use offers a means of creating a framework in this regard, real life examples portray the pencil thin nature of such boundaries in humor and infringement particularly when the involvement of commercial interests is concerned. Among the most recognizable internet memes comes the Grumpy Cat which got involved in a high profile lawsuit in the US. The trademark and copyright holder of Grumpy Cat, Grumpy Cat Ltd., sued a coffee company Grenade Beverage LLC. for violating the conditions of their license. The company did not have any mandate to use Grumpy Cat likeness on a certain line of iced coffees but extended it to some line of ground coffee beans. The federal court jury in California decided in favor of the plaintiff and as a result he was awarded a huge amount of damage amounting to $701,000. The given case demonstrates the fact that commercial use, even with the processing of a license, may imply litigation in case the terms are broken. Another case of note in the US concerns Christopher Orlando v. 5th Cell Media LLC and Warner Bros Entertainment Inc where these creators of the extremely popular memes Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat brought a claim against Warner Bros. over the unauthorized use of their copyrighted characters in the video game Scribblenauts. Using the information provided at the table, the creators could find some relief as the court could establish that Warner Bros. indeed was infringing on the right to privacy of the creators and therefore awarded them reasonable fair compensation. This case had entrenched the notion that a meme, even a derivative of it, can be defined as an artistic work with intellectual property rights and cannot be utilized by big companies without a permission. Photographer Daniel Morel was arrested after uploading pics to Twitter in the wake of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. . The news agency AFP and Getty Images subsequently distributed these images without his permission, arguing that by posting them on a public platform, he had given them a license to use the photos. The court, however, ruled that this was a copyright violation and awarded Morel $1.2 million in damages. This case is a crucial reminder that simply posting content online does not automatically waive your copyright, and platforms and news organizations cannot use it without permission. These instances underscore the risks and challenges copyright owners face in protecting their IPRs in the social media era and the position that the mere existence of an image, video, or any copyrighted work on social media is not tantamount to an authorization for its use without express permission from the copyright owner.

Initially, memes were a grassroots phenomenon, but this has fundamentally changed. Today, meme-making is a full-time profession for many, with "memers" engaging in a "reach war" to gain followers and monetize their accounts. This shift to commercial intent has a significant impact on the legal landscape. The moment a meme is used to sell a product or drive revenue, the "purpose of the use" factor in the fair use test swings heavily against the creator. What might be considered harmless parody for personal use becomes a clear-cut case of copyright infringement when it's done for profit. Businesses increasingly rely on memes to promote their products due to their cost-effectiveness and ability to engage audiences. Rapper Drake, for instance, famously designed a music video to be easily adapted into memes, a strategic move to increase its virality and reach. This commercialization of memes disentangles the ethical and legal boundaries, creating new challenges for regulators and courts alike.

Since memes are shared so quickly and on such large scale, the role of social media networks, or, rather, intermediaries, is the key. Different countries have been adopting various ways of law on how to cause these platforms to be accountable. The Information Technology Rule 4(2) The Information Technology The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rule 4(2) of 2021 in India grants authorities to courts to force a platform, such as Facebook or Instagram, to reveal the identity of a meme maker in cases where it is believed that the material published poses a threat to the national sovereignty. But intermediaries are generally exonerated once their role is narrower and confined to provide access itself and exercise due diligence. In the US, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) holds intermediaries legally liable to take down infringing material, as soon as they have received a proper takedown notice. Under these safe harbor propositions, platforms are not responsible of the materials uploaded by their user provided they follow them. This puts the copyright holder at an advantage of noticing and reporting the infringements actively. The policies of platforms are, however, usually inconsistent. What gets taken down under copyright infringement on one site may be viral on another stirring up confusion and unfair deletion of artists work.

It is hard to say that regulating the memes is nightmare as hard as it sounds as it is not helped by the existing legal mechanisms due to the nature of internet. Time to Share (Speed) and Number of People Sharing renders it virtually impossible to enforce by the time an individual becomes aware of it on a real time basis. By the time one makes a takedown request, the meme would have by now been reshared, remixed and re-remixed 100 times over. Untraceable Creators and Anonymity is an issue to establish the origin point because most viral memes were users with anonymous accounts or create a page specifically related to memes with no party history. There is difficulty in enforcing IP or a casual liability like the legal liability since it is unknown who has generated it. Jurisdictional Confusion occurs due to the fact that, on the one hand, the internet is without any borders but the copyright laws do not. An IPR infringement that is written in the U.S., put in India and also duplicated on a server in Singapore would cause complexity problems both in terms of jurisdiction in regard to valid laws meaning that cross-border implementation of IPR is not only very challenging but virtually impossible and so too. Transformation vs. Copying is also a case whereby the distinguishing line tends to be obscure and arbitrary to the law. There is no legal formula regarding the time a meme is creative enough to be accorded protection. Lack of consistent policies on Platforms also add to this confusion as well as the introduction of AI-Generated Content, as it is even more difficult to distinguish what is original what is a copy where lies the responsibility and attribution and ownership rights.

Memes can be humorous, and yet their legal impacts are no laughing matter. With the ever-changing digital world it is necessary to change our perception of this cultural phenomenon. Although the law fails to keep the pace of the internet culture, there are several fundamental principles that can guide the producers and the consumers. One should always remember about their purpose. You are posting a meme to laugh with your friends, or to sell something? In case it is the latter, the legal risks go off scale. As much as possible, it is a good activity to utilize original content or free stock photos that do not have to be paid or charged. When you are forced to use a derivative work, make it at least quite transformative- adding considerable new value or commentary to the original. The bottom line is that memes fall into a gray zone of legality and morality where court cases are not always the most important factor affecting cultural norms. Nevertheless, the two examples of the grassy Cat and Nyan Cat demonstrate that the copyright holder is not shy in defending his/her intellectual property, especially where monetary benefits are at stake. A collaborative solution, to be arrived at, halfway in between the need to respect ownership and the life of the internet on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the role of creators on the one hand, and platforms and lawmeskers on the other hand, is the most sensible possible one at which we are at this stage. This entails the copyright laws being followed, placating the people who pioneered the innovations, and even going to the extent of getting the appropriate permission of any copyrighted piece. When learning and accepting the law which governs intellectual property one is in a sense assisting in coming up with a system in which creativity is highly valued and the innovators advantaged.

REFERENCES

Case Law

  • Grumpy Cat, Ltd. v. Grenade Beverage, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-08216 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
  • Christopher Orlando v. 5th Cell Media LLC and Warner Bros. Entm't Inc., No. 2:13-cv-04660 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
  • Morel v. Agence France-Presse, No. 10 Civ. 2730 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
  • India TV v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3171
  • Blackwood and Sons Ltd. v. A.N. Parasuraman, (1959) 62 BOMLR 256

Statutes & Legal Principles

  • Copyright Act, 1957 (India)
    • Section 2(c)
    • Section 2(m)(i)
    • Section 52
  • Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (India)
    • Rule 4(2)
  • Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) (US)
  • Indian Constitution
    • Article 19(1)(a)

Based on the report and the provided online sources, here is a list of citations for a detailed report on the "Meme Paradox" in India, categorized for clarity.

Acts of Parliament

  • The Copyright Act, 1957.
  • The Trade Marks Act, 1999.
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case Law

  • Priyanka Sharma v. State of West Bengal, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 641.
  • R.G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films & Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 118.
  • Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma, [1996] (16) PTC 676.
  • Hubbard v. Vosper, [1972] 2 QB 84.
  • Blackwood and Sons Ltd. and Ors. v. A.N. Parasuraman and Ors., A.I.R. 1959 Mad. 410.
  • Arbaaz Khan v. NorthStar Entertainment Private Limited, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 4088.
  • San Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. v. Arpit Mangal & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3125.
  • Dabur India Ltd. v. Colortek Meghalaya, (2010) 6 SCC 358.
  • Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221.
  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.

Online Blogs and Articles

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Authors
Person photo placeholder
Khurana And Khurana
Your Author LinkedIn Connections
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More