On 1 April (April Fools’ Day) 2026, the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill passed its first reading in the New Zealand Parliament. If enacted, the Bill will amend the Copyright Act 1994 to introduce a new exception to copyright infringement for the fair dealing of copyright works for the purpose of parody or satire. The Bill has now been referred to the Social Services and Community Select Committee for consideration of public submissions.
The Bill is a Member’s Bill introduced by the opposition Green Party. As it is not a Government Bill, its progress is not assured – least of all in an election year. This is also at least the fourth attempt in 20 years to introduce a parody and satire exception; the Green Party last having tried in 2011.
However, the difference with the present Bill is that it passed its first reading by a substantial margin, with 115 votes in favour and 8 opposed. This level of cross-party support suggests the Bill has a strong prospect of passing its second and third readings to become enacted. However, its wording may still change following the select committee process, including in response to public submissions.
A new “fair dealing” exception
The Copyright Act 1994 contains narrow “fair dealing” exceptions for criticism, review, and news reporting (section 42), as well as for research and private study (section 43).
If enacted, the Bill will insert a new section 42A to create an additional fair dealing exception for parody or satire.
As currently drafted, proposed section 42A provides:
“A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of parody or satire.”
To fall within the exception, the dealing must be both fair and for the purpose of parody or satire.
The proposed wording is identical to section 41A of the Australian Copyright Act 1968, which was added in 2006.
What do “parody” and “satire” mean?
Like the Australian provision on which it is based, the Bill does not define the terms “parody” or “satire”. Instead, these terms would be left to judicial interpretation.
During the first reading debate, several MPs noted that the two concepts are distinct. Broadly speaking:
- parody involves imitation or mimicry, often for humorous effect
- satire typically uses humour, irony, or exaggeration to criticise or comment on social, cultural, or political issues.
Whether these concepts should be defined in the legislation may be considered during the select committee stage. Parliament may decide to add definitions to improve certainty, or instead leave the terms undefined, as Australia has done, to preserve flexibility.
What does “fair dealing” mean?
Neither the Copyright Act nor the Bill expressly define “fair dealing”. The courts have similarly been reluctant to provide an exhaustive definition.
However, what is clear is that “fair dealing” has always been distinguished from the US doctrine of “fair use”, which is afforded significant breadth and flexibility.
Instead, “fair dealing” is construed relatively narrowly, consistent with the limited nature of the defence for criticism, review, and news reporting.
The “research and private study” (section 43) defence does provide some potential guidance on the topic, in the form:
“In determining… whether copying… constitutes fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, a court shall have regard to—
(a) the purpose of the copying; and
(b) the nature of the work copied; and
(c) whether the work could have been obtained within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price; and
(d) the effect of the copying on the potential market for, or value of, the work; and
(e) where part of a work is copied, the amount and substantiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole work.”
For now, it remains unclear whether definitions or limitations may be incorporated within the proposed defence for parody and satire.
Impact on other IP rights
Importantly, the Bill would only amend copyright law. It does not propose equivalent exceptions for other intellectual property rights or related causes of action.
That means that, even if the Bill is enacted, a person creating a parody or satire may still face legal risk depending on the circumstances. For example, their conduct could potentially give rise to issues under:
- trade mark law
- registered designs law
- passing off
- the Fair Trading Act 1986.
In other words, a successful copyright defence would not necessarily put the parody or satire beyond legal challenge. A similar position exists under Australian law.
Next steps
The Bill will now be considered by the Social Services and Community Select Committee, which will receive and review public submissions before reporting back to Parliament.
We will continue to monitor the Bill’s progress and any amendments proposed during the select committee process.
