Spyros Melaris Sues Daily Mail for Copyright Infringement
The Spyros Melaris copyright infringement case against the Daily Mail highlights how major publishers can face serious legal risks for unauthorised use of footage, even in the age of viral news.
Melaris has filed a claim against Associated Newspapers Limited, the owner of the Daily Mail and Mail Online, alleging that the publication reproduced and distributed his video footage without permission. The proceedings, filed in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, seeks no less than £12,600 in damages, a figure reflecting the value of the licence and what he describes as the "flagrancy" of the infringement.
Background
Melaris, who achieved international notoriety when his 1995 Alien Autopsy filed fooled television audiences worldwide, remains the copyright owner of the original footage. The film, a staged "reconstruction" of an alleged alien autopsy, became one of the most famous media hoaxes of the 1990s.
In his latest dispute, Melaris claims that an article published by Mail Online embedded and reproduced sections of his footage without obtaining a licence or consent. He argues that the publisher's conduct goes beyond mere technical infringement, constituting a flagrant disregard for his rights as a filmmaker.
According to publicly reported details, the claim asserts that Associated Newspapers not only failed to secure proper permission, but also profited commercially from the infringing material by using it in a monetised, high-traffic article. The figure of £12,600 reflects compensation for the loss of licensing income, together with an uplift for the alleged flagrancy of the infringement.
Copyright Flagrancy in UK Law
In UK copyright law, a claimant may seek additional damages where the infringement is deemed "flagrant", that is where it involves deliberate, cynical, or egregious disregard for the rights of the copyright holder.
Courts assess flagrancy by considering factors such as:
- Whether the infringer knew, or had reason to believe, they were infringing copyright;
- Whether they took steps to conceal or profit from the infringement; and
- The scale and commercial nature of the unauthorised use.
In Melaris's case, the allegation is that Associated Newspapers acted knowingly and with reckless indifference to his ownership of the footage, a claim which, if upheld, could support enhanced damages.
Why This Matters for Creators and Publishers
The case highlights several broader themes for both creators and media outlets.
For creators, copyright ownership remains a powerful tool. Even decades after its creation, Melaris's footage retains legal protection and economic value. Documenting your rights, including evidence of authorship, registration (where applicable), and publication history is crucial for enforcement. "Flagrant" misuse by major publishers may justify stronger claims for damages beyond simple licence fees.
For publishers, relying on "public availability" of online footage is a risky assumption. Content being widely circulated does not mean it is free to use. Proper rights clearance and attribution processes are essential, especially when dealing with viral or archival material. Furthermore, the repetitional and financial costs of infringement claims can easily outweigh the perceived convenience of using unlicensed content.
Practical Takeaways
For content creators, this case is a reminder to monitor the use of your work online. Tools such as reverse video search and content-ID systems can help track unauthorised reproductions. Additionally, creators should act quickly if infringement is detected as initial correspondence or a take-down request can preserve your rights and strengthen your claim.
For publishers, internal protocols should be in place to verify copyright ownership before posting or embedding media into articles. Furthermore, records of permissions, licences, and communications with rights holders should be kept. If in doubt, seek legal advice or purchase a licence rather than relying on assumptions about "fair dealing" defences.
Tidman Comment
The Spyros Melaris copyright infringement case underlines the importance of copyright protection in relation to fast-moving, often viral, digital media. Even in an age when content is endlessly shared, reposted and repurposed, the law remains clear that creators retain the exclusive right to control the use of their work and enhanced damages may be sought if copyright flagrancy can be established.
For publishers, the case is a cautionary tale about the risks of overlooking copyright obligations. For creators, it is a sign that courts remain willing to recognise the seriousness and, where appropriate, the flagrancy of unlicensed use.
Make an Enquiry Now
We offer confidential, practical advice tailored to your business. Call our copyright experts on 0131 478 4724 or complete an Online Enquiry.
We have helped hundreds of individuals and businesses identify and protect their rights over product creation in the UK.
Please note the contents of this blog is given for information only and must not be relied upon. Legal advice should always be sought in relation to your specific circumstances.
