A great deal of online culture is built on other people’s work: a clip in a review, a line from a song in a sketch, a photograph in a piece of commentary. UK copyright law protects creative works, but the government’s guidance explains that there are “certain very specific situations” where a work can be used without asking the owner. This guide summarises the Intellectual Property Office’s guidance on exceptions to copyright, concentrating on the exceptions that matter most for creators: criticism, review, quotation, reporting current events, and parody, caricature and pastiche. It describes what the guidance says, not how a court would decide any particular case, and it is not legal advice.
What is an exception to copyright?
The guidance explains that, as well as owning copyright works, a person may wish to use someone else’s copyright-protected work. It says there are certain very specific situations where this may be permitted without seeking permission from the owner, and that these are found in the copyright sections of the Copyright Act. The word “exception” therefore means a defined situation in the law, not a general freedom to reuse material.
Our guide to creator contracts explains who owns copyright in work a creator makes. The exceptions covered here concern a different question: when a creator may use work that belongs to someone else.
What is “fair dealing”?
Several exceptions apply only if the use is “fair dealing”. The guidance says this is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or infringes copyright. It adds that “there is no statutory definition of fair dealing” and that it will always be a matter of “fact, degree and impression” in each case. The question to be asked is, in the guidance’s words: “how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?”
The guidance lists factors identified by the courts as relevant:
- The market for the original. If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, it is not likely to be fair.
- The amount taken. Was the amount reasonable and appropriate, and was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? The guidance says that usually only part of a work may be used.
It adds that the relative importance of any one factor varies with the case and the type of dealing.
What does the guidance say about criticism, review and quotation?
The page says fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. Fair dealing for the purpose of reporting current events is allowed for any type of work other than a photograph. In each case, a sufficient acknowledgement is required.
On photographs, the guidance gives a reason: the intention of the law is to prevent newspapers or magazines from reproducing photographs for reporting current events when those photographs have appeared in competitors’ publications.
For a creator, these are the exceptions that sit closest to commentary, reviews and reaction videos. The guidance does not describe videos, podcasts or social posts in particular, and it does not say how much of a work may be used in any form. It sets the framework and leaves each case to be judged on its facts.
What does it say about parody, caricature and pastiche?
The guidance says there is an exception that permits people to use limited amounts of copyright material without the owner’s permission for the purpose of parody, caricature or pastiche. It gives three examples:
- a comedian using a few lines from a film or song for a parody sketch;
- a cartoonist referencing a well-known artwork or illustration for a caricature; and
- an artist using small fragments from a range of films to compose a larger pastiche artwork.
The guidance then qualifies the exception. It says the exception only permits use for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche “to the extent that it is fair dealing”. So the factors about the market and the amount taken apply here too.
The page does not mention memes, remix videos or short-form video trends. Whether a particular piece of online content counts as parody or pastiche, and whether its use is fair, depends on the facts and ultimately on the courts.
What is “sufficient acknowledgement”?
For certain exceptions, the user must credit the original. The guidance says that where an exception is used to copy someone else’s work, a sufficient acknowledgement is necessary in relation to some exceptions. Examples it gives include where all or a substantial part of a work is copied for criticism or review, or where the use was for news reporting. It also says acknowledgement is not required where it is impossible for reasons of practicality.
Acknowledgement is a separate requirement from fairness. The same guidance says that certain exceptions apply only if the use is fair dealing, so crediting a source is not the whole test. YouTube’s own Help page takes a similar line for the US concept of fair use, saying that giving credit will not by itself turn a non-transformative copy into fair use; our guide to YouTube copyright claims and strikes explains that page.
What other exceptions does the guidance list?
The page covers several other exceptions, which matter less to most creators but show how narrow the list is:
- Non-commercial research and private study. Limited extracts may be copied if the use is non-commercial research or private study, the use is genuinely study, and it is fair dealing. The guidance says copying the whole work would not generally be considered fair dealing.
- Text and data mining for non-commercial research. Researchers with lawful access to a work may make copies for computational analysis, for non-commercial research only.
- Teaching. Several exceptions allow use for educational purposes, such as copying to illustrate a point where the use is non-commercial, acknowledged and fair dealing.
- Helping disabled people. Two exceptions allow accessible-format copies in defined circumstances.
- Time-shifting. A recording of a broadcast can be made in domestic premises for private and domestic use to watch or listen later. The guidance says recording for other purposes is likely to be illegal.
The page also has a section on technological protection measures, which it says play an important role in letting copyright owners offer content in different ways. This is a separate topic from the exceptions above.
How does this compare with fair use in the United States?
The two systems differ in structure. UK guidance lists specific purposes, such as criticism, review, quotation, news reporting and parody, within which a use must also be fair dealing. YouTube’s Help page on fair use describes the US approach as a set of four factors a court weighs: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount used and the effect on the market. The page itself says rules about copyright exceptions are often similar around the world but can differ.
For a creator whose videos are watched in several countries, this means that a use that fits one country’s rules may not fit another’s. The guidance on this page applies to UK law, and the YouTube page applies to the platform and to US law as it describes them.
What should creators take from the guidance?
The pages support a few careful points:
- The list is short and specific. Exceptions are “very specific situations”, not a general permission.
- Purpose matters. The exceptions are tied to purposes such as criticism, review, quotation, reporting current events, parody, caricature and pastiche.
- Fairness matters. For the exceptions that rely on fair dealing, the market effect and the amount taken are central.
- Acknowledgement is often needed, but it is not enough.
- Facts decide. The guidance says fair dealing is always a matter of fact, degree and impression.
For anyone using third-party music, film or images in paid work, the alternative to an exception is a licence or permission from the owner. Licensing and usage rights are described in our explainer on how creators make money. Where a use is borderline, the sensible step is to take qualified advice before publishing.
What are the limits of this guide?
The GOV.UK page was first published on 12 June 2014 and, on the version read for this article, was last updated on 4 January 2021. Copyright law and guidance can change, so the current page should be checked. The page is guidance from the Intellectual Property Office, not the Act itself, and the guidance says the exceptions can be found in the copyright sections of the Act. A court, not a guide, decides whether a particular use is fair.
This article is general information based on published UK government guidance. It is not legal advice. Whether a particular use of someone else’s work is permitted depends on the facts; take qualified advice where it matters.
Sources: GOV.UK, Intellectual Property Office (Exceptions to copyright, published 12 June 2014, updated 4 January 2021); YouTube Help (Fair use on YouTube)
