Memes, remixes and reaction videos legal? – Copyright 2025: Parody and pastiche exception

Memes, remix videos and reaction videos have become an integral part of online culture – but are such memes legal in 2025 or are there a risk of copyright warnings? With the 2021 copyright reform, Germany has introduced new exceptions to copyright law, in particular the parody, caricature and pastiche exception in Section 51a UrhG. This is intended to facilitate creative adaptations such as internet memes, mash-ups or satirical remixes. However, clear rules are needed: When is a meme considered a permitted parody or pastiche and where do you cross the line into copyright infringement? What applies to reaction videos under copyright law – does quotation law or the new limits apply here? This article answers these questions in a legally sound manner. We analyze the new pastiche exception (§ 51a UrhG), define criteria for permitted memes, remixes and reaction videos, differentiate pastiche from parody and caricature, consider the special situation with commercial use (e.g. memes in advertising) and provide information on how much third-party material may be used. Finally, relevant court decisions are presented – from the BGH “metal on metal” to current rulings – and recommendations are given for creators to minimize warning risks in 2025 (including tips on the use of AI-generated memes).

The new pastiche exception (Section 51a UrhG)

In June 2021, Section 51a UrhG was introduced, which expressly permits use for the purposes of caricature, parody and pastiche. This new regulation implemented the requirements of the EU Copyright Directive (DSM Directive 2019/790, Art. 17 para. 7) and at the same time closed a loophole that had arisen after the abolition of the former “free use” (Section 24 UrhG old version). What does Section 51a UrhG say? Essentially, the provision allows published works to be reproduced, distributed or made publicly accessible without the author’s consent if this is done “for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche”. This restriction is intended to strike a balance between the interests of the author and creative user practice in the digital age.

The legislator has made it clear that the pastiche barrier is to be understood very broadly. In the official explanatory memorandum to the law, pastiche is described as an integral part of European culture and as “essential for artistic freedom”. Classical forms (e.g. literary pastiches) and modern digital remix practices are explicitly mentioned: The explanatory statement lists examples such as remixes, memes, GIFs, mash-ups, fan art, fan fiction and sampling. Such techniques of quoting, imitating and adopting other people’s content are a defining element of contemporary internet culture.

What is meant by “pastiche”? § Section 51a UrhG itself does not define the term in more detail. According to the legislator, it includes any incorporation of parts of other people’s works into a new work as long as there is a recognizable interaction with the original. Unlike parody or caricature, this interaction does not have to be humorous or mocking. For example, an appreciative reference, homage or stylistic imitation of the original is also sufficient. There is plenty of scope: a “pastiche” can be used to make an artistic statement of its own by referring to a well-known work – whether seriously or parodically, approvingly or critically. The only important thing is that the new work makes recognizable reference to another work and draws on it to express something of its own. It is precisely this bridging of the gap between the old original and the new context that characterizes the pastiche concept.

When is a meme, remix or reaction video allowed as a pastiche?

Not every allusion to an existing work automatically enjoys protection – there are clear criteria as to when a meme, remix or reaction video can be classified as a permissible pastiche under Section 51a UrhG. Guidance is provided here by case law and discussions at EU level, among other things. Based on the ECJ’s definition of parody ( Deckmyn case, 2014), German authorities have also proposed defining pastiche with three characteristics:

• Recognizable reference (evocation): The new work – be it a meme image, a music remix or a video – must take up the original in a recognizable way so that an average viewer understands the allusion. No pastiche without recognition. A meme based on a famous film scene, for example, must be sufficiently recognizable (e.g. through the image itself or iconic quotes from it).
• Independence and differences: At the same time, the new work must show clear differences to the original and have its own character. It must therefore not simply be a copy, but must transform the original work. This can be achieved through visual changes, a new context, montage with other content or creative additions. For example, a meme that simply re-posts another person’s photo 1:1 does not fulfill this requirement – but if you add your own witty text or a Photoshop montage, a new overall impression is created.
• Artistic engagement: Unlike parody (which typically requires humor or mockery of the original), any form of “artistic dialogue” with the original is sufficient for pastiche. The new work should deal with the content of the referenced work, be it through homage, stylistic imitation, satire or critical reflection. It is important that the foreign material fulfills a purpose within the new work – it should, for example, serve as a quotation, contrast foil or artistic element, not just as free decoration. A remix song that takes a recognizable beat from a classic, for example, should play with this quote – ironically breaking the old sound in a new context or developing it further musically. A reaction video, on the other hand, should be more than just the mere showing of someone else’s clip – it should provide added value or commentary on the original through the YouTuber’s reaction or commentary, which can be seen as a creative discussion.

If a specific meme/remix meets these criteria, it can fall under the pastiche barrier and be legal without the permission of the rights holder. Nevertheless, there are special features for each format:

Memes and online gags as pastiche

Memes – usually image-text combinations or short video gags – are often based on well-known templates (scenes from films, well-known photos, pop culture references). This is often a parody or satirical alienation, which favors the application of Section 51a UrhG. A meme will be classified as admissible if the original image remains recognizable, but an independent statement is created through alienation or a new context. Example: A famous press photo is provided with an ironic text that twists the original statement – this creates a new communicative-satirical content that can be considered a pastiche/parody. Case law emphasizes that there must be an “evaluative confrontation” with the original and a change in appearance (physical or contextual). This means that the image should either be altered (e.g. labeled, mounted) or placed in a new, commentary environment so that it does not simply depict the original work. Purely humorless memes that have no recognizable message other than the image itself would be problematic. Memes that are based almost entirely on the original content, without an independent contribution, could also fall through – here you would have to resort to quotation law or other restrictions, but these have strict requirements.

Practical tip: If possible, add your own creative element to memes (text, combination of several templates, stylistic changes). The more the meme offers a new twist – be it comedic or commentary – the more likely it is to be covered by the pastiche privilege. A meme should not simply serve to make the original work accessible, but should always convey a message or punchline that would not be possible without the original.

Remixes, mashups and samples

Remix culture has been around for a long time in music and video: Be it the DJ mix, the mashup of two songs, the sampling of a beat or the fan editing of a movie. In the past, copyright law often stood in the way here – the smallest scraps of sound could constitute an infringement (cf. the famous case of metal on metal, see below). With Section 51a UrhG, there is now possible leeway for remixes, provided they are pastiche-like. As a rule, a remix or mashup is a pastiche if it creatively recomposes recognizable excerpts of other people’s works without simply offering a replacement for the original recordings. The decisive factor here is that the new mix creates an independent effect or statement.

A music sample (e.g. 2 seconds of a well-known song in a new song) could be considered a pastiche if it is deliberately used in a recognizable way in the new track, e.g. to pay a stylistic tribute or create a musical contrast. This is exactly what the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in Hamburg decided in 2022 following the Metall auf Metall case: The court deemed the adoption of the two-second Kraftwerk rhythm in a hip-hop song to be a permissible pastiche, as the new song adopts a recognizable component of the old song and “enters into an intellectual dialogue with the original”. In other words, the sample was understood as an artistic reference, not as mere copying for its own sake. However, this assessment is still being examined by the Federal Court of Justice and the ECJ (more on this in the case law section).

Mashup videos (such as film scenes recut into a comedy trailer) should be classified in a similar way – they combine several sources into something unique. Important: The more original editing and conceptual wit involved, the better the chances of passing as a pastiche/parody. A pure montage without any changes, on the other hand, would be critical.

Reaction videos and Let’s Plays

Reaction videos – i.e. videos in which someone reacts to a third-party video (music clip, trailer, etc.) and often shows it in its entirety – present a particular challenge. Here, a third-party work (the original video) is usually played in its entirety while the reactor in the image reacts to it (comments, laughs, analyzes). Does the pastiche or parody exception apply here? This is a borderline case. On the one hand, it can be argued that the reaction video creates a new work in which the original appears in a modified form – namely supplemented by the personal reaction/commentary of the creator. On the other hand, there is a risk that the original can be consumed 1:1 without any transformation content of its own, which is problematic in terms of copyright.

In practice, reaction videos are often justified using the citation regulation (Section 51 UrhG): The original video is quasi embedded as a quote in order to comment on or criticize it directly. German quotation law allows the use of third-party works “provided that the scope of use is justified by the specific purpose” – for example, for explanation or criticism. A reaction video that substantially discusses the original work (e.g. a film review that shows and analyzes excerpts) can be based on this. However, the right to quote requires that only as much is shown as is necessary for the commentary. If you simply play the entire video and occasionally react, you will quickly exceed the required amount. In the case of reaction videos, it is therefore very important how intense and independent the reactor’s contribution is. Pure facial emotions or cheering may not be considered sufficient creative engagement, while detailed comments, jokes or classifications carry more weight.

Whether reaction videos fall under pastiche (Section 51a) has not yet been clarified by the highest court. It is conceivable if the reaction is artistically satirical – for example, if it parodies the original video or places it in a new context. An example would be a reaction video that deliberately exaggerates a clip ironically or combines it with other overlays (i.e. more than just live commentary). In such cases, one could speak of a kind of video caricature that comes close to Section 51a UrhG. In many cases, however, the safe option will be to treat reaction videos as quotations/criticism and to design them accordingly: short sequences, with extensive commentary in between, and ideally not showing the entire original from beginning to end without interruption. Otherwise, you run the risk of courts saying – as discussed in the next section – that an almost complete takeover without sufficient own creation is not permitted.

To summarize: Memes and remixes can usually be permitted as pastiches or parodies, as long as they are creatively altered and use the original in a new way. Reaction videos are in the area of conflict between the right to quote and pastiche – here, particular care must be taken to ensure that you offer more than the original, namely your own intellectual output in the form of commentary, humor or analysis.

Differentiation: pastiche vs. parody and caricature

Parody and caricature are the classic barriers that have long been (sometimes implicitly) enshrined in copyright law. These terms are often mentioned in the same breath as pastiche, but there are subtle differences:

• Parody: According to the common definition, a parody is a humorous or satirical imitation of a work that pokes fun at the original or at least alludes to it in a recognizable way in order to make a joke out of it. In the Deckmyn case (2014), the ECJ set out two key criteria: The parodic work must, firstly, be sufficiently reminiscent of the existing work, but at the same time have perceptible differences, and secondly, be an expression of humor or mockery (=mockery). A parody is typically directed against the original or uses its familiar form to create a punchline. Example: A song whose melody is retained, but with wittily altered lyrics that may poke fun at the original. Or a cartoon that recreates a well-known painting, but with a funny twist. Parody therefore aims for comic effects, often with a critical undertone.
• Caricature: Caricature is closely related, mostly in the visual field. It exaggerates characteristic features of a person or a work into the grotesque in order to ridicule or comment on them. We are familiar with caricatures from political satire (e.g. politicians with oversized heads etc.). In copyright law, caricature is treated similarly to parody – as a rule, it is necessary that the adoption of foreign elements serves to ridicule or criticize. The caricature barrier is likely to apply above all to pictorial works (e.g. a collage that distorts a famous work of art in order to comment on it).
• Pastiche: As explained above, pastiche is more broadly defined. It does not have to involve mockery; serious or neutral uses can also be pastiche (e.g. homages, remakes in a different style). Pastiche is therefore a kind of “catch-all” for creative adoptions that are not clearly parody or caricature. Stylistic imitations without satirical intent are also often called pastiches – for example, a modern novel written in the style of Jane Austen (literary pastiche). In the digital space, for example, a fan film that deliberately imitates the style of Star Wars without directly parodying it would be a pastiche rather than a parody.

Important: Section 51a UrhG names all three terms equally. Legally, there is no hierarchy between them – all three are permitted uses. Nevertheless, the respective requirements must be met. If a work is clearly humorous and designed to mock the original, it is referred to as a parody; if this level of humor is missing but there is intertextuality, it is a pastiche.

The distinction can be difficult in individual cases. In case of doubt, however, it is not tragic whether you label your meme as a parody or pastiche – both fall under the same legal barrier (as long as the basic requirements – recognizable reference, independence, etc. – are met). The distinction is important in theory. For example, in 2016 – before the introduction of Section 51a – the Federal Court of Justice had to rule on a case in which a press photo of an actress was digitally edited in such a way that the person appeared extremely overweight. This image gag (“celebrities trimmed to fat”) was classified as a parody within the meaning of the free use provision at the time. It was clearly a mockery (exaggeration to the point of ridicule), so it was called a parody. If, on the other hand, the montage had not served the purpose of laughter but, for example, an homage, one could have spoken of pastiche – the result (permission) would probably be the same under today’s law, only under a different label.

Conclusion Differentiation: Parody and caricature are special cases of pastiche with humorous intent. As a rule, every parody or caricature also fulfils the pastiche criteria (recognizable adoption + independent discussion), just in a humorous way. Conversely, not every pastiche is funny – it can also be serious or pay homage. From the author’s point of view, it is important that all these forms are covered by the law as long as they do not disproportionately affect the author’s rights. This leads to the next point: what happens when such uses are commercial?

Memes in advertising: What applies to commercial use?

Can companies or brands use protected works as memes or parodies for advertising? This question is highly topical in 2025, as marketing with memes is popular. In principle, copyright law makes no distinction as to whether a permitted use is private or commercial – Section 51a UrhG only requires the stated purpose (parody/pastiche), but no non-profit criterion. Theoretically, an advertising clip can therefore also be a parody or a pastiche and would then be legal despite its commercial intent. In practice, however, the hurdle is higher because courts take a close look at advertising to see whether there really is an artistic interpretation worthy of protection or whether the original work is only being used as an eye-catcher for sales.

Example: A company wants to land a viral hit and uses a well-known meme image (such as the “Distracted Boyfriend” meme) in its social media ad. If the company does not have a license for this, it may try to argue that it is a parody or caricature. As a rule, however, you will have to say: There is no artistic statement of its own here, it is primarily a case of exploiting the popularity of someone else’s content. The chances of a court recognizing this as a permitted parody are slim – it would simply be a copyright infringement because the image is being used for advertising purposes without enough transformation.

Another scenario: A commercial parodies a well-known film, e.g. by humorously recreating its iconic scene to promote a product. This can be permissible if the parody is clearly recognizable and the original work is not taken over excessively. For example, the BGH has indicated in previous decisions that parodies may also be permitted in advertising as long as it is clear to the public that the original has been altered and there is no risk of confusion. In the “Promis auf fett getrimmt” case, although no classic advertising was involved, a commercial newspaper was – the B.Z. published the altered photo – and the BGH allowed it to be considered a parody. The decisive factor there was the freedom of art/satire, which also had weight over copyright law.

Nevertheless, companies must bear in mind that moral rights and trademark rights play a role: Parodying a protected comic mascot, for example, may be covered by copyright, but it could infringe trademark law (use of a logo in advertising without permission) or damage the reputation of the original (moral rights of the author or the person depicted). The risk of legal disputes is high in the case of commercial meme use, simply because financial interests are involved. Rights holders will intervene more quickly if a company earns money with their content, even if it has been creatively altered.

Therefore, it is usually advisable for companies and agencies to obtain a license or use their own material if in doubt, rather than relying on the barrier. If you do want to use a parody, it should be very clearly recognizable as such and the original work should be used in a small excerpt or heavily modified. A good indicator is: Would an average viewer perceive the advertising material as satire/parody and not assume that the original or its author is behind it? If so, you have a better chance. However, if it is simply the original image with the company logo over it, the threshold has clearly been exceeded.

In addition, the three-step test of copyright law increasingly applies to commercial use. This states that limitations are only permissible if the use a) represents a special case, b) does not impair the normal exploitation of the work and c) does not unreasonably infringe the legitimate interests of the author. An advertising campaign that uses someone else’s work could be regarded as an impairment of normal exploitation – after all, the author could have licensed the motif himself. An unreasonable infringement of the author’s interests is also obvious if, for example, a valued work of art has to be used for profane advertising without permission. Something like this would probably not be covered by the law.

In short, anything that is recognizable as a parody/pastiche is permitted – even in advertising. But practice shows that companies have to be very careful here. Humor alone is not enough, it must also legally pass as a parody/pastiche. If in doubt, it is better to cooperate with the author or create your own variant. The barriers are primarily intended to protect the creative development of users and reward less commercial free riders.

Scope of the permitted use of third-party content

A central aspect of memes, remixes and the like is: How much of the original can I use? Can I use entire images or songs, or just small excerpts? The legal restriction in Section 51a UrhG itself does not set any rigid quantitative limits – the decisive factor is whether it is a pastiche/parody. However, it can be deduced from case law and practice:

• Taking over complete works is risky. It is not absolutely forbidden – theoretically, an entire work can also be integrated into a new one and thus pastiched. But there is a great risk that an independent work is then no longer recognizable. The courts have made it clear that Section 51a is not a carte blanche to use third-party works 1:1. For example, the Regional Court of Cologne ruled in 2024 that a YouTube video retelling the complete short story of a well-known author was not covered by the restriction. In the case (“The Wise Fisherman” based on Heinrich Böll), the original was almost completely taken over, only slightly modernized – the court denied parody/pastiche here, as no own elements were added and the original remained unchanged in terms of content. This use directly competed with the original (nobody would have to read Böll anymore if they saw the video) and was therefore inadmissible. The lesson from this: Anyone who takes over almost 100% of someone else’s work must transform it 100% pervasively, otherwise it is simply an unfree adaptation.
• Parts of a work: It is more common – and safer – to use excerpts or elements of other people’s works, not the whole thing. A meme often only takes an image (possibly from an entire movie) or a quote. A remix might take a riff or beat, not the whole song. Here, the probability of meeting the threshold increases if the excerpts are cleverly combined with original material. The German implementation of the DSM Directive even contains indications in the UrhDaG (Copyright Service Provider Act) as to when a use is considered minor: less than 15 seconds of film or sound, less than 160 characters of text and only non-commercial purposes – then it is assumed that the use is legal. Although this rule (Section 9 UrhDaG) is aimed at upload platforms, it shows what the legislator considers to be trivial. A short excerpt (a few seconds of a video or song) in a user video is more likely to be tolerated, especially if it is mixed with other content. In other words: Small snippets of other people’s material placed in a new context can pass as a quote or pastiche, while long 1:1 sequences are problematic.
• Qualitative takeover: It’s not just the length that counts, but also what you take over. If the core or the most concise part of a work is taken over (e.g. the chorus of a song), even this short excerpt can “replace” the original. Conversely, even an entire work can be permitted if it is modified in such a way that it does not replace the original. One example was the Berlin Art Case 2021: A painter integrated a complete digital graphic into his painting – i.e. 100% takeover – but the court considered it permissible because the image material in the new artwork was given a completely different expression and context. The aesthetic effect was changed and it was clearly part of a new creation, not just the original painting in itself. This example shows that alienation (transformation) is the key. It is perfectly acceptable to take over a lot if you overlay it through montage, combination with your own material or stylistic changes so that the end product is perceived as independent.
• Level of creativity of the template: If the template is not protected by copyright (because it is too banal), you do not need a barrier – then the use is free. However, many meme templates (e.g. simple symbols, very short sentences) do have copyright protection. You should not speculate that something is “so short, it’s in the public domain” – this is a common misconception. Even a single sentence can be protected if it is creative (e.g. movie quotes). As a rule, it can therefore be assumed that memes with well-known images/clips use protected material, which is why the barrier is necessary.

To summarize: What is allowed in terms of scope and length is what is necessary to achieve the desired parody/pastiche effect – no more. If you want to make a joke with a movie scene, for example, you should only use the key scene or a still image instead of uploading the whole movie. The longer and more complete the takeover, the more likely you are to run the risk of a court saying that the normal exploitation of the work is being impaired here (you watch it on YouTube instead of buying the film). The barrier must not serve as a substitute for regular consumption, but only for creative misappropriation. Therefore, when in doubt: less is more – use small quotes precisely instead of long passages.

Case law: examples from practice

By way of illustration, here are some court decisions (some of which are still in the course of appeal) relating to parody, pastiche and related cases. They show how the theory is applied in practice:

• BGH “Metall auf Metall” (I-V, 1999-2023): Legendary legal dispute over a 2-second music sample from the Kraftwerk song Metall auf Metall, used by Moses Pelham in a new hip-hop song. In 2020, the Federal Court of Justice ruled (following an ECJ referral) that sampling was permitted for the period before 2002 (because German “free use” applied at the time), was prohibited between 2002 and 2021 (EU law superseded Section 24 UrhG old version), and may be permitted again from 2021 – namely as a pastiche. In 2022, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg expressly classified sampling as a permitted pastiche. However, in 2023, the BGH again referred the matter to the ECJ in order to clarify the pastiche concept throughout the EU. This procedure(Pelham II) is intended to define whether sampling, for example, can generally be considered a pastiche and whether criteria such as “humor, style imitation or homage” are required. A decision by the ECJ is still pending (as of 2025), but is of great importance for memes and remixes throughout the EU.
• Regional Court Berlin, judgment of 2.11.2021 (15 O 551/19): First judicially confirmed case of application of the pastiche barrier in Germany. An artist had embedded a digital graphic (a kitschy cherry blossom tree) freely found on the internet into an oil painting in the form of a collage. The court affirmed § 51a UrhG: The painting was a pastiche, as it represented an “evaluative examination of the original” and the digital graphic appeared in an altered form (as part of a larger dystopian work of art). The decisive factor was that an objective observer could recognize that a well-known kitsch motif had been placed in a new context in order to make a statement. The complete adoption of the graphic was permissible because it was superimposed and reinterpreted by integrating it into the painting. – Note: This judgment (LG Berlin) shows great benevolence towards artistic collages. It even permits 100% takeovers, provided that the work’s own character predominates.
• Regional Court of Cologne, judgment of 18.01.2024 (14 O 181/22): Usage limit reached: In this case, the short story “Anecdote to lower the work ethic” by Heinrich Böll was almost completely retold in a YouTube video (modernized and provided with illustrations). The court denied the use of a copyright – neither parody, caricature nor pastiche were present. In particular, the full use of another person’s work is not covered by Section 51a if no sufficient contributions of one’s own are added. The video reproduced the Böll fable unchanged in terms of content and only added a new medium (comic video) – that is not enough. The judges emphasized that the pastiche exception only allows parts of a work, but not the complete, sole use without genuine own creation. Furthermore, this use violated the three-step test: viewers would now watch the video instead of reading the text, which would impair the normal exploitation of the work. – Practical lesson: Retelling entire works 1:1 is taboo; without clear own elements, the restriction does not apply.
• BGH “Celebrities trimmed for fat” (judgment of 28.07.2016 – I ZR 9/15): A photographer sued because a tabloid newspaper had published his celebrity photo in a heavily distorted form (actress was digitally “fattened up”) as part of a competition. The BGH ruled that the photographer had to accept this as a parody. The image manipulation was assessed as a satirical examination of beauty ideals and fell under the parody threshold recognized at the time via Art. 5(3)(k) InfoSoc Directive. The ruling made it clear that even a striking visual distortion of a photo can be permitted as long as it is clear to the public that it is an altered image and not a version authorized by the author. The personal feelings of the photographer (who feared damage to his reputation) took second place to artistic freedom. – This example shows that severe distortion (in this case, exaggeration to the point of ridicule) can justify copyright infringement, even if the original remains completely recognizable (the person was identifiable). Today, such a case would be classified as a caricature/parody under Section 51a.
• BGH “TV-Total” (judgment of 20.12.2007 – I ZR 42/05): The comedy program TV-Total with Stefan Raab was known for showing short clips from other TV programs and commenting on them humorously. In this judgment (still on Section 24 old version and the right to quote), the BGH approved such uses: Showing short TV clips for satirical purposes fell under the reporting/freedom to quote. Stefan Raab’s use of third-party material was therefore covered by a combination of the right to quote and satirical free use. This ruling underpinned the fact that snippet-like takeovers for humorous commentary are permissible – a principle that Section 51a now expressly continues.

(Other relevant cases: e.g. BGH “Geburtstagszug” 2013 on free use in music, BVerfG “Germania 3” 2000 on artistic freedom vs. copyright – these are mentioned for the sake of completeness).

As you can see, courts tend to protect creative transformations, even if protected works are recognizably incorporated – as long as the new work appears independent enough and is not a mere substitute for a work. Conversely, there is rigorous intervention if someone uses third-party content almost unmodified. If in doubt, it is worth taking a look at the current and upcoming decisions: In particular, the expected ECJ ruling on “Pelham II” will concretize the limits of the pastiche concept throughout the EU. Observers speculate whether a generous interpretation will be made – pastiche could possibly become a kind of “European fair use” that legalizes many remix practices. Until then, it is advisable to stay on the safe side of the current criteria.

Tips for creators: Avoid warnings in the meme culture of 2025

Finally, some recommendations for creators who create and publish memes, remixes or reaction videos – so that their content is on the safe side legally and warnings are avoided as far as possible:

• Contribute your own creative work: Make sure your contribution is clearly recognizable. Just showing someone else’s work is not enough. Add something of your own to your meme/video – be it a witty text, a collage of several sources, your personal commentary or artistic alteration. The more you put your own stamp on the end product, the better the chances are that it will pass as a creative contribution.
• Only take on as much as necessary: Use external material sparingly and selectively. For a reaction video, for example, cut out unimportant parts of the original clip and concentrate on a few key points that you want to comment on. For memes, a single image or a short excerpt is often sufficient – posting entire series of images from a work increases the risk. Rule of thumb: The other person’s work should not be shown to its full advantage in the new context, but should always be embedded in your own work. Minor use (e.g. a few seconds of a song) tends to be less problematic.
• Clarify the context: Make the parodic or satirical context clearly recognizable. Ideally, the audience should immediately understand that it is a joke, commentary or artistic remix – and not an official publication by the original author. This can be achieved through exaggeration, humor, clear naming (e.g. “trailer parody”), etc. Obvious fun is more likely to be legally tolerated than ambiguous use that could be misunderstood.
• Do not offer a substitute for the original: Make sure that your work cannot be consumed as a substitute for the original. If your video makes someone feel like they no longer need to watch/read the original (piece of music, movie, book), you’ve probably taken on too much. For example, a reaction video should make people curious about the original or show it through your lens rather than delivering it in full. When in doubt, feel free to encourage viewers to support the original work (e.g. “Watch the whole movie at the rights holder’s site”). This also shows your honest intention. (Although this is not required by law, it can underline the fairness of your use in the event of a dispute).
• If unsure: license or use your own creation: If you are planning to use a meme or remix content commercially (e.g. merchandise, monetization on YouTube) and are in doubt as to whether the barrier applies, consider obtaining permission to use it from the rights holder. Music labels or photographers are often willing to negotiate with viral memes – it’s better to pay a small license fee than risk an expensive warning. Alternatively: Use public domain or Creative Commons content as the basis for your memes. There are many royalty-free stock photos or sounds that you can remix without any problems.
• Be careful with trademarks and personal rights: Copyright is not the only thing that can make a meme problematic. If, for example, you use the logo of a company or the photo of a real person (celebrity), trademark law or right to one’s own image/right to a name may apply. Although parody and satire also offer certain areas of protection, these are narrower. For example, a celebrity might not like the idea of being used as a meme on the internet and could take action against its distribution. There is no hard and fast rule here, except: the more satirical and socially critical the use, the more freedom of expression/artistic freedom protects you; the more it is just for fun or even advertising, the less. If in doubt, avoid identifying characteristics (or use an AI to generate a fictitious person instead of a real celebrity).
• Use of AI-generated memes: Artificial intelligence can help to create original content that is reminiscent of something without directly copying it. For example, text-to-image generators (DALL-E, Stable Diffusion etc.) can create an image in the style of a well-known meme without using the original photo. The result is usually new under copyright law and belongs to you – the original photo is not copied 1:1, so there is no classic infringement. However, in the case of AI images, it is still unclear whether the training data (often with copyrighted works) poses a problem. There are currently (2025) no clear prohibitions on this in Germany. You can therefore use AI creatively, e.g. to make a meme with well-known characters without directly using their original image. However, make sure that the AI output does not accidentally reconstruct a real existing image – this is unlikely with common meme templates, but theoretically possible. And avoid protected characters in AI memes (e.g. Disney characters), as trademark law is strict here. Generally speaking, an image “recreated” by AI is certainly less problematic legally than a copy-paste of the original – many creators already use this to avoid copyright claims.
• Documentation of the creative intention: This point is optional, but can’t hurt: If you deliberately create a pastiche or homage, record your thoughts and intentions in writing. If the worst comes to the worst, this could show that you had no malicious intent but wanted to proceed artistically. Although it is the objective impression of the work that ultimately decides, not your subjective intention, it can still help to demonstrate to platforms or courts that it was intended as a parody/pastiche (and not just called that after the fact). For example, YouTubers could point out the parodic character in the video description.

In conclusion: Despite all the barriers and tips, there is still a residual risk. The legal situation surrounding memes and remixes is still developing. Cases such as Pelham II before the ECJ will bring further clarity, but may also draw new boundaries. Therefore: always keep your finger on the pulse of current case law. If in doubt, ask a lawyer experienced in media law before publishing something that is based on third-party content and has great potential for dissemination.

Conclusion

The copyright situation for memes, remixes and reaction videos in Germany in 2025 is much more creator-friendly than it was a few years ago. The pastiche barrier (Section 51a UrhG) has given creators broad scope to use protected works in a transformative way – be it for satirical memes, musical remixes or artistic mash-ups. Parody and caricature are now expressly permitted and no longer require a legal balancing act. Practice shows: Where there is genuine creative engagement with the original, courts tend to regard this use as justified. However, a clear distinction is also made: Mere reposting or minimal alteration of third-party content does not fall under protection – the author’s own work must be recognizable.

Caution is required, especially in the gray area of reaction videos and commercial meme use. It is advisable to take a conservative approach here and rely more on quotation law or licenses until final guidelines from the highest courts are available. Overall, the new legal situation helps the remix culture without abolishing copyright – it is a balance that takes into account both creativity and the legitimate interests of authors.

For creators, this means that with wit, creativity and respect for the original, you can do a lot of things in 2025 that would have been forbidden in the past. Using memes legally is no longer a utopian dream, but a tangible reality – as long as you know the rules and apply them intelligently. In short: “Memes away”, but with a brain and a law book in mind. 😃