Going Viral Doesn’t Mean It's Free — Sara Nadzirah vs. Khirulanuar (2023)

 


🔍 Case

In 2023, a Malaysian influencer named Sara Nadzirah bt Zulkifli took legal action against Khirulanuar bin Mohamadiah, a durian seller who reposted her viral video without her permission.

The video showed Sara eating durian in her signature, humorous way, which gained traction quickly across platforms. Seeing its popularity, Khirulanuar downloaded the video and uploaded it to his business Facebook page, using it to promote his durian stall. The problem? He didn’t ask for permission, and the post was clearly commercial.

Sara filed a copyright infringement claim, arguing that her content was used for commercial gain without her consent.



🧾 Key Legal Principle

At the heart of this case is copyright ownership of social media content under the Copyright Act 1987 (Malaysia).

The court considered:

  • Whether a social media video is copyright-protected.

  • Whether reposting a copyrighted work on Facebook, especially for commercial use, qualifies as infringement.

  • Whether any exceptions (like “fair dealing”) applied.

Under Malaysian law, videos and digital content are protected as audiovisual works, provided they are original. The creator (in this case, Sara) is the copyright owner.

Even if something is publicly available online, it doesn’t give others the right to reproduce or repurpose it for profit.



💬 Analysis

The defendant claimed the repost was meant to be funny and engaging, not malicious. He added disclaimers like “video not mine” and argued that it was simply a fan post, not a business tool.

But the court wasn’t convinced.

The video had clear entertainment value, was created by Sara herself, and had Sara visibly featured. The repost was not only unauthorized but was used in a business context, which tilted the balance toward infringement.

The argument of fair dealing (a Malaysian exception for certain non-commercial uses) was rejected because the post was clearly promotional.



📌 Results & Consequences

The High Court ruled in favor of Sara Nadzirah, granting her a summary judgment—meaning the court found the case clear enough that it didn’t need to proceed to full trial.

Key consequences:

  • Confirmed copyright applies to influencer content, not just traditional media.

  • Set a local precedent on how viral content can still be protected even if it's “all over the internet.”

  • Businesses must now be cautious about reposting social media content, especially when there’s a commercial motive.

Sara was awarded damages and gained control over how her content could be used.



✍️ Blogger's Perspective

This case is a big deal, especially for content creators, influencers, and small businesses navigating social media.

Many people still assume that if something is posted online, it’s “free to use.” But this ruling makes it clear: online doesn’t mean ownerless.

It’s empowering for creators, especially those who rely on their content for income or branding. And it’s a wake-up call for businesses who casually lift content off TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube for their own marketing.

Want to repost something? Ask first. Respect the creator. Otherwise, your viral promo might come with a lawsuit.



💡 Conclusion

Sara Nadzirah v. Khirulanuar is a landmark Malaysian case that shows how the law is catching up with the digital world. Whether it’s a vlog, a TikTok dance, or a funny review, creators own their content.

As content continues to shape commerce, respecting copyright isn't optional anymore, it’s essential. If you’re using someone else’s video to help your brand, you’d better have their blessing, or be ready for legal heat.



By: Nur Adriana Binti Mohamed Razif



📚 Sources

Comments

Post a Comment