Introduction
Post 2020, India’s meme consumption is at an all-time high. These creative constructs, often humorous and laden with cultural connotations, have transcended social media platforms to permeate mainstream newsrooms. As media outlets increasingly employ memes to engage audiences, questions arise regarding the legality of such practices, particularly concerning unauthorized usage and the rights of original content creators. Herein, it is pertinent to understand the contextual background behind the said analysis.
Memes are not merely internet jokes; they are creative pieces of expression that reflect societal norms, political sentiments, and cultural nuances. They can be classified as original works or transformative works using someone else’s initial original content, such as a meme from a film scene. Lately, it has been increasingly used by news media to educate people on concepts such as politics, using the construct of humour. For example, Tatva India, a popular news outlet, routinely employs memes when disseminating news on their Instagram channel or the India Times and the Economic Times, sharing memes about pressing issues. This furthers the dilemma of the legality of commodifying such pieces and associating one’s media house with the product when it was procured without permission from the creative owner. While the fair use doctrine allows for certain exceptions to copyright infringement, the position of its legal validity is still unclear.
In this article, the author attempts to delineate this ambiguity in law and answer the question of the legality of the meme usage by media houses through a twofold analysis. Firstly, I elaborate on the fair use doctrine and its caveats. Secondly, I situate this doctrine within the context of meme usage by news media to analyse its legal applicability. Lastly, I conclude that while attempting to draw a balance between journalistic free speech and the right over one’s work product.
The Defence of Fair Use
The basis of the rule of fair use, as shown in Section 52 of the Copyright Act, is that it may not be termed infringement when the purpose of such infringement is bonafide, like for the purpose of research, private study, criticism, news reporting, teaching, review and so on. However, as stated in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd. & Another, the contours of this doctrine cannot be consistently defined; rather, it must be a question of fact depending on the facts and circumstances. The decision also noted that in circumstances containing reportage of current events, a liberal interpretation should be given to the doctrine of fair use.
While there is no definite contour on fair use, there are certain tests that have been laid down to ascertain whether an act would constitute fair use. In Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd. (“Ashdown”), the court laid down a three-pronged test to ascertain whether an act would constitute fair dealing. This depended on (i) whether the alleged fair dealing is in commercial competition with the owner’s exploitation of work, (ii) whether the work has already been published or otherwise exposed to the public, and (iii) the amount and importance of the work which has been taken.
In Blackwood and Sons Ltd. and Others v. A. N. Parasuraman and Others, a similar test was laid out. The court held that to constitute unfairness, there must be an intention to compete and to derive profit from such competition and that unless the motive of the infringer was unfair in the sense of being improper or oblique, the dealing would be fair.
Courts have consistently recognized that news reporting and commentary serve a public interest, warranting a more flexible application of fair use. However, this does not grant an absolute shield to media houses; rather, the intent, extent, and impact of usage must be scrutinized. Thus, the applicability of fair use to meme-based journalism is not a binary question but a matter of degree. This distinction becomes clearer when analysing the ways in which media houses utilize memes, i.e., whether as transformative tools that advance public discourse and understanding or as unaltered reproductions that simply appropriate creative expression. The next section explores this divide, assessing where the line between fair use and infringement must be drawn.
The Fair Use Loophole for Media?
Now, considering the case of news platforms utilizing memes in sending a broad public message, it is pertinent to broadly classify this utilization into two types. First, instances where media houses employ memes but repurpose them to convey a different message; and second, where the meme is reproduced in its original form without any material modification or permission.
In the former, the modified meme now becomes a transformative work of art. A transformative work is one that adds new expression, meaning, or message to the original, such that it alters the purpose or character of the work. This concept was significantly elaborated on in the decision in Authors Guild v. Google. In the instant case, Google had utilized numerous copyrighted works in creating a digital library without the permission of the authors. However, the court noted that the library created, although premised on the original products, had become a transformative work of art as Google’s creation served a new and different purpose: enabling textual search, data analysis, and research. Herein, a correlation can be drawn to Section 107 of the US Copyright Act, which lays down certain factors to be looked at when determining fair use. These include the purpose of the work, the nature of the work, the substantiality of the portion used and the effect of its use on potential markets. Using these factors, the court noted that the purpose and nature of the work were substantially altered, resulting in a transformative work. Moreover, the infringement, if any, was driven by bonafide aims and allows for the creation of new insights, thus falling within the ambit of fair use.
This framework can be meaningfully extended to the meme context. When news organisations adapt existing memes to convey commentary on political, social, or cultural events, particularly with humorous or satirical intent, they are not merely reproducing the original work. Instead, they are repurposing it for the public benefit in a journalistic context. As the utilization of altered memes by news houses is generally fortified with an overwhelming objective of public interest and welfare, these memes would find themselves capable of enabling the doctrine of fair use as it then becomes a transformative work of art.
The case of the latter, i.e., utilizing identical memes without modification or permission, may not be so legally clear-cut. Herein, the applicability of the fair use doctrine would depend on a case-to-case basis. Say, for example, news platform A has directly reproduced a meme created by news channel B on prime time. As articulated in the Ashdown test, a significant factor weighing against the applicability of the fair use doctrine is where the use of the copyrighted work occurs in direct commercial competition with the copyright holder, thereby undermining the economic interests or market potential of the original work. In the given example, as it consists of two horizontal firms in the same market, it then squarely falls under copyright infringement.
However, the situation changes when a news platform reproduces a meme created by an independent content creator, rather than a direct competitor. The question then arises, does the content creator suffer economic harm from such reproduction, or does it fall under permissible use due to the news media’s public interest role?
If a media house takes a meme from an independent artist, comedian, or social media influencer, erases their watermark, and claims the meme as their own, the act may violate author’s special rights under Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, which protects an author’s right to attribution i.e., a person’s right to be recognized as the creator of a work, to have their name associated with it, and to prevent others from using their name in connection with a work they did not create. This is especially relevant in India, as news platforms often commercialize their content through advertisements and subscriptions, making even non-modified meme usage a potentially infringing act.
The effect of meme usage on the market for the original work plays a role in fair use analysis. If the news outlet’s use of the meme significantly diminishes the original creator’s ability to monetize their work, such as by discouraging audience engagement with the original meme, then the defence of fair use may not hold. For example, in India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd., despite the reasoning for using video clips being ‘reporting of current events’ the court held that it would not be fair use. The court observed that it was used without permission with a commercial nexus. Further, it held that merely inserting content into a news segment does not make it news reporting. Rather, it is the intent and nature that are important.
A further legal challenge emerges when media houses use memes featuring celebrities, copyrighted characters, or brand logos. In such cases, the legal concern extends beyond copyright infringement alone and enters the realm of personality rights, which protect an individual’s name, likeness, voice, and other personal attributes from unauthorised commercial use. For instance, using a celebrity’s image or a film scene in a meme without consent may violate their right of publicity, particularly if the meme is monetised or used in a way that suggests endorsement. Similarly, incorporating trademarked content or logos without authorization may amount to trademark infringement or dilution. If a news platform posts a meme featuring a popular film clip, sports footage, or a trademarked brand image, it might not only infringe upon the original meme creator’s rights but also violate the intellectual property rights of the original source material’s owner.
This brings into question whether news reporting, in its attempt to be engaging and accessible through memes, might inadvertently breach multiple layers of copyright protection. Therefore, while transformative meme usage may occasionally be shielded by fair use, media houses must tread carefully, as unauthorised reproduction can infringe copyright, violate moral and personality rights, dilute trademarks, and undermine the original creator’s ability to monetise their work.
Conclusion
The intersection of meme culture and news reporting presents a novel challenge to copyright jurisprudence in India. As memes become powerful tools of communication in the digital age, particularly in the realm of journalism, the legal framework governing their usage demands scrutiny. While the fair use doctrine, under both Indian and comparative jurisdictions, provides a degree of leeway for transformative, public-interest-driven content, it is far from a blanket exemption. The application of this defence requires a fact-specific analysis of the purpose, nature, extent, and impact of the usage.
As explored above, the legality of meme usage hinges on several interrelated caveats: whether the meme has been materially transformed, whether its reproduction creates market harm for the original creator, whether it is used in direct commercial competition, and whether moral and personality rights have been respected. Thus, while memes can enrich journalism by making complex issues accessible and relatable, their use must be grounded in legal responsibility. A cavalier approach risks not only copyright and trademark violations but also the erosion of creators’ rights and trust in media ethics. As Indian courts have yet to explicitly address meme-based reportage, there is an urgent need for judicial guidance or regulatory clarity. Until then, media organisations must balance creative freedom with legal due diligence, navigating the fair use doctrine not as a loophole, but as a carefully delimited shield.
(This post has been authored by Tanya Sara George, a student at MNLU, Mumbai)
CITE AS: Tanya Sara George ‘Meme-Culture Meets Headlines: The Fair Use Dilemma in Indian Journalism’ (The Contemporary Law Forum, 11 July 2025) <https://tclf.in/2025/07/11/meme-culture-meets-headlines-the-fair-use-dilemma-in-indian-journalism/> date of access.