Permission to Parody Redux
I’ve gotten a few e-mails confidently dismissing yesterday’s Weird Al post, noting the activity falls under “fair use.” I have a massive fair use (and “first sale”) post I’ve been meaning to do for some time.
Fortunately for you, dear reader, today is not that day.
To this point, let’s just say that all parody is not equivalent. Relevant case law in this area includes, most prominently, Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, Inc. [syllabus]. That case concerned a 2Live Crew song “Oh, Pretty Woman” and whether it constituted fair use of the Roy Orbison original.
Was it a parody? Certainly. Did it therefore constitute fair use? Not necessarily. I’m sure you’d love me to go into the four tests in detail, but instead I’ll allow those who care to read the original decision. (Anyone? Anyone?) I’ll just leave you with this nugget from one analyst:
It is important to distinguish between parody of the original work, which is fair use, and use of the original work to parody something else, which requires permission. For this reason, entertainer “Weird Al” Yankovich has been unable to write any of his parodies to the tune “Purple Rain,” as the copyright owner with the unprintable name (it used to be “Prince”) has so far refused his requests for permission to use the tune. — What is “Fair Use” in Copyright Law?
“Weird Al” traditionally asks for permission not just because he’s a nice guy, but because he treads a very fine line, legally. Which is shame. The bigger shame, of course, is that Eminem doesn’t hold other people to the same standards he has for himself.