4 November 2026 · Elise Steegstra · 11 min read

Can You Use Bluey in a Political Cartoon? Copyright, Parody and Satire Under Australian Law

The ABC's dispute with One Nation over political cartoons featuring Bluey raises an interesting question: when does using someone else's copyrighted character become lawful satire?

Australia's favourite blue heeler has found herself at the centre of an unexpected intellectual property controversy.

On 28 October 2026, the ABC reported that it had called for Pauline Hanson's One Nation party to remove political cartoons featuring Bluey. The ABC's managing director, Hugh Marks, raised the issue during Senate estimates and indicated that legal action was being considered.

One Nation has denied infringing intellectual property rights.

The controversy raises some important questions about Australian copyright law. Can you use a recognisable fictional character in political commentary? Does the parody or satire exception apply? And if the ABC doesn't own Bluey, who has the right to enforce the copyright?

These questions extend well beyond political cartoons. They are relevant to any business using popular culture, memes, illustrations or other people's creative work in its marketing.

Who owns the intellectual property in Bluey?

One of the interesting details in the ABC's reporting is that the ABC doesn't actually own the underlying intellectual property in Bluey.

Bluey was created by Queensland-based Ludo Studio. BBC Studios has a distribution role, while the ABC has broadcasting rights in Australia.

This illustrates an important distinction in intellectual property law: owning intellectual property is different from having permission to use it.

A business might own the copyright in a creative work, while other businesses hold licences to publish, distribute, broadcast or commercially exploit that work.

Those licences can grant different rights.

For example, a software developer might own the copyright in a program while granting a customer an exclusive licence to use it in a particular industry. A photographer might retain copyright in their photographs while licensing a business to use them in advertising.

The distinction becomes particularly important when infringement occurs.

Under Australian copyright law, copyright owners generally have standing to bring infringement proceedings. Exclusive licensees can also have statutory enforcement rights, subject to the relevant requirements.

However, a business holding a non-exclusive licence doesn't automatically have the same rights.

So the fact that the ABC broadcasts Bluey doesn't, by itself, establish that it can commence copyright infringement proceedings in its own name.

The relevant licensing arrangements matter.

Can fictional characters be protected by copyright?

Nobody can claim copyright over the general idea of a cartoon dog, a family of dogs or a children's television program about imaginative play.

For a character such as Bluey, several different types of copyright material may be involved:

Original character illustrations and designs may be protected as artistic works.
Television scripts may be protected as literary works.
Music and sound recordings attract their own forms of protection.
Completed television episodes are protected as cinematograph films.

There may also be registered trade marks protecting the Bluey name, logos and other branding.

If someone closely reproduces Bluey's distinctive visual appearance, they may have copied a substantial part of a protected artistic work.

Importantly, substantial doesn't necessarily mean a large percentage. Copyright law considers the quality and significance of what has been copied, not simply the quantity.

However, recognising a character and infringing copyright in that character's artwork are not necessarily the same thing.

The particular similarities and the protected material involved need to be considered.

Does Australian copyright law allow parody and satire?

Yes.

Section 41A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) provides an exception for fair dealing with a work or an adaptation of a work for the purpose of parody or satire. Corresponding exceptions apply to certain other types of copyright material.

This is an important difference between Australian copyright law and the broader American concept of fair use.

Australia doesn't have a general fair use defence. Instead, it recognises specific fair dealing exceptions, including parody and satire.

But the exception isn't unlimited.

There are two central questions:

Is the use genuinely for the purpose of parody or satire?
Is the dealing fair?

Both matter.

What's the difference between parody and satire?

Parody generally involves imitating or exaggerating a work for humorous or critical effect.

For example, a comedian might imitate the style of a popular television program to make fun of the program itself.

Satire is potentially broader.

Satire can use humour, irony, ridicule or exaggeration to criticise politics, institutions, social behaviour or broader issues.

This distinction is particularly relevant to the Bluey controversy.

The ABC's managing director reportedly questioned whether the use qualified for the exception because the cartoons weren't parodying Bluey herself.

However, section 41A refers to parody or satire.

It isn't necessarily a requirement that the copyrighted work itself be the target of the criticism.

A political cartoon using a familiar fictional character to comment on political events might potentially qualify as satire.

That doesn't mean the defence will necessarily succeed.

It simply means the legal analysis cannot end with the observation that the cartoon isn't making fun of Bluey.

What makes a parody or satire fair?

Even where the purpose is parody or satire, the dealing must still be fair.

Australian law doesn't provide a single checklist that conclusively determines fairness in every situation.

Relevant considerations may include the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the original work, the amount and importance of the material copied, and the impact on the market for the original work.

Consider a few questions arising from the Bluey cartoons.

Why was Bluey used?

Was the character used to communicate a political point through humour or criticism? Or was a famous character included primarily to attract attention?

How much was copied?

Was the character's distinctive artwork reproduced closely? Was the character central to the cartoon?

What was the commercial context?

A cartoon distributed free of charge isn't necessarily non-commercial. Political communications can be used to attract supporters, build recognition and advance an organisation's objectives.

However, political purposes don't automatically make a dealing unfair either.

What impact does the use have on the copyright owner's interests?

Bluey is a valuable entertainment property supported by extensive licensing arrangements.

The copyright owner's legitimate commercial interests are relevant.

But there is a difference between harm connected to copyright and simply disliking the message being communicated.

Ultimately, whether the One Nation cartoons qualify for the exception would depend on the particular material and the circumstances of its use.

Can a copyright owner prevent an offensive use of its character?

Not automatically.

Bluey is closely associated with family entertainment, and the ABC has expressed concerns about the character appearing in violent or confronting political scenarios.

Those concerns are understandable from a brand management perspective.

However, copyright law doesn't provide a general right to control every association with a creative work.

Other legal rights may be relevant.

Trade marks

Registered trade marks protect certain uses of signs that identify the commercial origin of goods or services.

If someone used Bluey branding on merchandise in a way that suggested it was an official licensed product, trade mark infringement might become relevant.

But merely referring to or depicting a recognisable character in political commentary doesn't automatically amount to use as a trade mark.

Misleading or deceptive conduct

There may also be questions under Australian consumer law if a use misleadingly suggests sponsorship, approval or affiliation.

However, recognising a character doesn't necessarily mean believing its owner endorses the message.

Moral rights

Australia also recognises moral rights held by individual creators.

These include a right of integrity, which can protect against certain derogatory treatments of a work that prejudice the creator's honour or reputation.

Moral rights are distinct from copyright ownership and generally belong to individual creators rather than the companies commercially exploiting the work.

Whether moral rights could be relevant to this particular dispute would require further information about the creators, the material and the nature of its treatment.

The important point is that these legal rights protect different interests and have different requirements.

Could the ABC obtain an injunction?

The ABC's managing director reportedly raised the possibility of seeking an injunction rather than relying solely on financial damages.

An injunction is a court order requiring someone to stop or undertake particular conduct.

In a copyright dispute, an injunction may prevent further publication or distribution of infringing material.

That can be particularly important where a rights holder is concerned about continuing use of a valuable creative property.

However, an injunction isn't automatic.

The applicant must establish the relevant legal requirements, and an interim injunction sought before a final hearing involves additional considerations.

At the time of recording the accompanying podcast episode, the ABC had indicated that legal action was being considered, but the dispute had not been determined by a court.

What does this mean for businesses using memes and popular characters?

Most businesses aren't producing political cartoons.

But many use recognisable characters, movie scenes, memes or popular cultural references in their marketing.

For example, imagine a café creating a social media advertisement featuring a famous television character making a joke about coffee.

Or a consultant using a screenshot from a movie to illustrate a point in a presentation.

Or a marketing team modifying a popular cartoon image for a promotional campaign.

There are some common misconceptions about these uses.

"It's fine because it's funny."

Not necessarily. Making something humorous doesn't automatically mean it qualifies as parody or satire.

"It's fine because we changed the image."

Changing an image doesn't necessarily avoid infringement if a substantial part of the original protected expression has been reproduced.

"It's fine because we credited the creator."

Attribution doesn't replace permission or establish that a copyright exception applies.

"It's fine because we're not making money from it."

Non-commercial use isn't automatically lawful.

The circumstances matter.

Even where a business has an arguable legal defence, there is a practical question worth considering: is the benefit of using somebody else's creative work worth the potential cost and distraction of a dispute?

In many cases, commissioning original artwork or obtaining an appropriate licence is a simpler and more commercially sensible option.

The overlooked lesson: make sure your IP licences cover enforcement

There's another important business lesson in the Bluey dispute.

Intellectual property licensing agreements should clearly establish not only who can use the IP, but also who is responsible for protecting it.

A well-drafted agreement should address questions such as:

Who owns the underlying intellectual property?
What rights are being licensed, and are they exclusive?
Can the licensee modify the work or grant sublicences?
Who monitors potential infringement?
Who can issue cease-and-desist letters or commence proceedings?
Who controls litigation and settlement negotiations?
Who pays the costs of enforcement?

These provisions become particularly important when multiple businesses have commercial interests in the same intellectual property.

Uncertainty over enforcement rights can create delays and disagreements precisely when a coordinated response is needed.

Copyright protection is powerful, but not absolute

The Bluey controversy highlights an important balance in Australian copyright law.

Creators and copyright owners have legitimate interests in protecting their creative work and the businesses built around it.

But copyright law also recognises that there are circumstances where protected material can be used without permission, including fair dealing for parody or satire.

A copyright owner disliking a particular use doesn't automatically establish infringement.

Equally, calling something satire doesn't automatically make it lawful.

The answer depends on the protected material, the purpose of the use and whether the dealing is fair.

For businesses, the lesson is straightforward: understand what you own, what you've licensed, and when using somebody else's creative work might create legal risk.

Do you know what intellectual property your business owns?

My free IP Audit tool helps you identify the intellectual property in your business and consider whether it is adequately protected.

You can also listen to the accompanying episode of Elise Explains IP for a more detailed discussion of the Bluey controversy and Australia's parody and satire laws.

This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain advice tailored to your circumstances before acting on the information discussed.