Memes: digital culture, copyright, and legal limits

ZBF attended an exhibition dedicated to “memes,” which prompted a legal analysis of the topic.

The term was coined by biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 to describe units of cultural information that spread among individuals in a way analogous to genes in biology. In the digital era, the concept includes images, short videos, phrases, or combinations of these elements, which circulate rapidly on social networks and are constantly adapted, remixed, and re-signified.

Memes have become a language of their own on the internet. They are used to comment on political events, express emotions, criticize public figures, support advertising campaigns, and even mobilize social movements. Their communicative strength lies in ephemerality, irony, and the ability to synthesize ideas and feelings in a single image.

From a legal perspective, can memes be protected by copyright? As a rule, yes — provided originality and creativity requirements are met. Whenever there is an intellectual contribution in the creation, combination, or transformation of elements, a protected work may exist.

However, that is not the end of the analysis. A large portion of memes is created from preexisting works or third-party images over which the creator has no rights. In those cases, unauthorized use may constitute copyright or image-rights infringement, creating tension with the informal nature of this kind of content.

Ownership is also difficult to identify. Due to the collaborative and decentralized nature of memes, it is often impossible to determine who the original author is, since many memes result from successive and anonymous contributions. This clashes with the traditional copyright model, which assumes an identifiable author and an individualized work.

On the other hand, there are situations in which the use of preexisting works may be legally admitted. A meme may qualify as parody, an institute expressly allowed by Brazilian Law No. 9,610/1998, as long as it is not a mere reproduction of the original work and does not discredit it. In such cases, creative transformation for humorous, critical, or satirical purposes may legitimize use within legal limits.

Finally, virality does not eliminate rights. Neither copyright nor image rights are automatically waived simply because content is widely shared. The key distinction is the purpose of use: personal sharing generally has low harmful potential and limited practical relevance for right holders. But when there is a commercial purpose, the scenario changes substantially, since corporate use of memes may constitute unauthorized economic exploitation with relevant legal consequences.

In short, although memes appear informal and spontaneous, their use is embedded in a complex legal environment that requires careful analysis under copyright and image-rights rules.

The CCBB exhibition did more than celebrate memes as a cultural phenomenon: it highlighted the debate on the place of this format in society and, consequently, in the legal order.