The term "69 Wedge" isn't found in any legal textbook. Yet, it perfectly encapsulates the profound and often paradoxical split in our global digital landscape—a division so deep it resembles a geological fault line. On one side, we have the entrenched systems of intellectual property (IP) law, built for an analog age. On the other, the relentless, borderless force of digital creation, remix, and distribution. The "69" symbolizes the inverted, mirrored, and interconnected nature of this conflict: creator vs. consumer, platform vs. proprietor, West vs. East, control vs. freedom. This wedge is being driven deeper daily by today's most pressing technological upheavals, creating a minefield of legal and copyright issues that define our online existence.
To understand the modern legal battles, we must first dissect the fundamental pressures creating this wedge.
Copyright law remains stubbornly national. A work is protected according to the laws of Country A, B, or C. The internet, however, is the ultimate stateless territory. A user in one country uploads content that infringes the copyright of a rightsholder in a second country, using a platform headquartered in a third country, and is accessed by users in dozens more. Which jurisdiction applies? The legal chaos this creates is the bedrock of the 69 Wedge. Platforms are caught in the middle, facing conflicting legal demands—DMCA takedown notices from the U.S., the "right to be forgotten" from the EU under GDPR, and copyright filtering mandates from proposed laws like the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA). Compliance is a global nightmare.
In this jurisdictional vacuum, private platforms—Meta, YouTube, TikTok, Twitter—have become de facto sovereigns. They create and enforce their own "community guidelines" and copyright policies, often through opaque, algorithmic systems like Content ID. This privatized enforcement creates a "platform law" that often supersedes national copyright law in its direct impact on users. The legal issue here is one of due process and accountability. When an algorithm mistakenly flags and monetizes a creator's original work, the appeal process is frequently a black box. The wedge is between legal statutory rights and the terms-of-service governance of private corporations.
The democratization of creation has exploded. Anyone with a smartphone is a filmmaker, musician, and commentator. This creator economy thrives on remix, parody, reaction content, and memes—areas that often exist in the legally gray space of "fair use" (U.S.) or "fair dealing" (other jurisdictions). Traditional, centralized rights holders (major record labels, film studios) often view this ecosystem as a threat, leading to aggressive takedown campaigns. The legal battle is over the soul of "transformative use." Is a 2-hour video essay analyzing a film's themes fair use, or is it freebooting? The law is notoriously unclear, and the threat of litigation chills creative expression, deepening the wedge between old and new media paradigms.
These core tensions manifest explosively in today's headlines.
Artificial intelligence is the single greatest force currently splitting the legal landscape. The copyright issues are multifaceted and largely unanswered: * Training Data: Is the scraping of billions of copyrighted images, texts, and code to train models like Stable Diffusion or ChatGPT a form of copyright infringement, or a protected fair use? Major lawsuits from artists, authors, and media companies are testing this very question. The outcome will either unlock AI's potential or severely restrict its development. * AI Outputs: Who owns the output? If an AI generates a song in the style of a popular artist, using prompts from a user, who holds the copyright—the prompt engineer, the AI company, or no one? Current U.S. Copyright Office guidance suggests purely AI-generated works lack human authorship, but blends of human and AI input enter a gray zone. * Deepfakes and Moral Rights: Beyond copyright, AI-generated deepfakes of celebrities or voices (like the infamous "AI Drake") create crises of "moral rights"—the right to control one's likeness and identity. Existing "right of publicity" laws are being stretched to their breaking point.
The TikTok model is a 69 Wedge in action. Its core functionality is built on user-generated content that samples, remixes, and recontextualizes copyrighted music and video clips. Through blanket licensing deals with music publishers, TikTok has created a paradoxical space: a song that is aggressively policed on YouTube can be freely used by millions on TikTok. This creates a two-tiered copyright system. Furthermore, the "trend" culture accelerates the spread of potentially infringing content faster than any takedown regime can handle. The legal issue is one of scale and intent: does the platform's design induce infringement, or is it a protected tool?
The Non-Fungible Token (NFT) craze exposed a profound public misunderstanding of copyright. Purchasing an NFT of a Bored Ape or a digital artwork typically grants no underlying copyright to the image itself. You own a token on a blockchain pointing to a file, not the IP. This led to countless legal disputes where NFT creators minted works using copyrighted characters or assets they didn't own. The wedge here is between the perception of digital ownership sold by Web3 evangelists and the hard reality of copyright law, which was never designed for blockchain authentication of provenance.
The 69 Wedge has a distinct geopolitical dimension. China's approach to IP and internet governance presents a stark alternative model. While enforcing copyright on domestic platforms like Tencent with its own strict rules, China has historically been perceived by Western rightsholders as a hub for physical counterfeiting and, at times, digital piracy. Furthermore, Chinese-owned global platforms like TikTok operate under a completely different set of data and content moderation philosophies, creating a clash of legal and cultural norms. The "splinternet" is not just a theoretical idea; it is a legal reality where data sovereignty laws and national firewalls create entirely separate digital ecosystems with their own rules of engagement.
The path forward is not about eliminating the wedge—the tension between protection and innovation is inherent—but about managing the seismic shifts it causes.
Some argue for legislative modernization: updating fair use doctrines to explicitly account for machine learning and remix culture, creating new sui generis rights for AI outputs, or establishing international copyright treaties fit for the digital age. Others believe in technological solutions: better blockchain-based rights management or more transparent and accurate AI filtering tools.
Perhaps the most pragmatic evolution is in new licensing models. The music industry's shift from fighting streaming to embracing it (however painfully) is a lesson. We see the beginnings of this with stock media sites offering "AI-friendly" licenses and platforms negotiating industry-wide deals for user-generated content. The future may lie in micro-licensing, collective rights management for AI training data, and platforms that share revenue more transparently with all layers of creators, from the original composer to the TikTok remixer.
Ultimately, the 69 Wedge represents a world in legal flux. The old binaries—owner/user, original/copy, legal/infringing—are blurring. The law, always a slow-moving beast, is racing to catch up with a reality where every user is a potential broadcaster and every algorithm is a potential creator. Navigating this new landscape requires not just legal expertise, but a deep understanding of technology, culture, and the ever-shifting center of the digital fault line. The tremors will continue, and the legal maps will need constant redrawing.
Copyright Statement:
Author: Advice Legal
Link: https://advicelegal.github.io/blog/69-wedge-legal-and-copyright-issues.htm
Source: Advice Legal
The copyright of this article belongs to the author. Reproduction is not allowed without permission.
Advice Legal All rights reserved
Powered by WordPress