# Are Parodies Exempt from Copyright Laws? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 13, 2002, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516 "2002-11-13T02:14:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Chubbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Chubbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chubbs)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/1 "2002-11-13T02:14:39Z")
I heard this somewhere but I don’t remember where. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/2 "2002-11-13T02:36:07Z")
[http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/requirements/](http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/requirements/) > [@](#): > > For example, a parody of a work often includes elements from the original work, together with new elements, which together produces a comical effect. Although the parody is based on another work, there is generally some creativity involved in creating the comical effect, which makes the parody protected. However, if the parody includes large portions of text from the original, then it infringes on the copyright of that original. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/3 "2002-11-13T08:34:47Z")
Not so much exempt, as treated separately under the law. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/4 "2002-11-13T18:07:42Z")
Historically, the courts have granted great leeway to parodies, especially if they are of public figures, as Jerry Falwell found out in his lawsuit against Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine. But you can quickly get into trouble if you try to include a trademark in your parody - as you will quickly find out if you include a Disney character. ---
**Author:** ![Eats\_Crayons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Eats\_Crayons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eats_Crayons)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/5 "2002-11-13T18:24:03Z")
Oo! Oo! I know this! I was looking it up recently… **Depends of the Juristiction** Under U.S. copyright laws, parodies are treated separately – sort of – “parody” is considered a form of criticism and in most cases falls under the “fair use” provision of copyright legislation. (But someone who is in a bad mood can still try to challenge it as a “derivative work.”) In Canada it depends on the circumstance and one may need to resort to case law for a specific answer about a given scenario. Parodies _can be_ considered copyright infringement as well as being in violation for the “derivative rights.” In the UK and Australia, “parody” is not an accepted defence against claims of infringement. Parodies are _potentially_ liable. The relevant factors which have been considered by English and Australian courts in determining whether a parody is infringement are: substantiality, originality and obscenity (or “how much?”, “how clever?” and “how offensive?”) So although Weird Al _could_ be challenged in some juristictions, not likely that anyone will be enough of a jerk to do so. As **Exapno** wrote, the courts tend to grant a lot of leeway to parodies (unless the parody includes something that’s trademarked – like a Smurf or Mickey Mouse) Most people have to have really lousy sense of humour if they challenge one. Nontheless, it happens and usually it takes a long time to sort it out if it goes to court. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/6 "2002-11-13T19:03:48Z")
Actually, Weird Al can’t be challenged in _any_ jurisdiction, because he always gets permission before he releases a song parody. ---
**Author:** ![Eats\_Crayons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Eats\_Crayons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eats_Crayons)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/7 "2002-11-13T20:31:38Z")
**Nametage** – Understood, but I was just looking for a general example of a parody. I should have said “someone _similar to_ Weird Al…” As a mini-hijack: Has any one ever refused him permission? ---
**Author:** ![N9IWP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/n9iwp/32/3154_2.png) [@N9IWP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/N9IWP)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/8 "2002-11-13T21:22:14Z")
Weird Al: He did do Amish Paradise w/out permission–but that was due to miscommunication–he thought he had permission but it turns out he didn’t. WA makes reference to not getting permission from “the purple symbol guy”, but most artists take it as a compliment to get the WA treatment. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/9 "2002-11-13T21:26:07Z")
I don’t know if this counts as “refusing permission,” but there was something of a misunderstanding between Coolio and Weird Al. Weird Al’s people apparently got the message (and passed it along to Al) that Coolio had given permission to parody “Gangster’s Paradise”. After Weird Al’s version, “Amish Paradise”, came out, Coolio made a public statement (after the Grammys, IIRC) to the effect that he was very upset with Al for making the parody without his permission. Al was pretty upset, believing that he had permission, and he apologized for the misunderstanding. That was the last I heard about it. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/10 "2002-11-13T21:35:19Z")
If either **RM Mentock** or **Charmian** has a cite, I’m curious about any separate laws for parody under US federal statutes. To say that it is treated under “fair use” is not by itself meaningful: that’s just a point of existing general copyright laws. As for Weird Al, yes. [http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicArtistsY/yankovic\_qanda2.html](http://www.canoe.ca/JamMusicArtistsY/yankovic_qanda2.html) > [@](#): > > J: You always ask permission to do your parodies. Have you ever been outright refused? > > A: I’ve been refused, but it’s pretty rare. Most artists know that it’s all done in good fun and all that. Prince or The Artist Formerly Known As or… what’s he calling himself this week? Shirley? I forget. He’s never let me do anything which would have meant something back when he was actually putting out hits… He’s never seen fit to let me do a parody, though. We’d call him up every couple of years to see if he’d acquired a sense of humour and he never did, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Pencil\_Pusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Pencil\_Pusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pencil_Pusher)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/11 "2002-11-13T21:59:30Z")
I thought I heard that Weird Al did get permission from the **copyright holder** of Gangster’s paradise (i.e., the record label) but NOT Coolio. So Coolio made lots of noise about being ticked off, but he really couldn’t do anything about it. Anyway, **Exapno Mapcase** , if you are looking for a cite, check out _Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc._, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994). So, to recap, in the begining ideas were free. Then the Constitution said that authors should be granted monopolies on their works. Accordingly, Congress enacted laws that identified what authors have control over (copying, creating derivative works, publicly exhibiting, etc.) Hence, copyright was born. Congress, however, also enacted laws exempted certain works from the authors control. Hence, fair use was born. The Supreme Court of the United States took a look at the class of works called “parodies” and decided that all parodies should be classified under fair use. Hence the exception for parodies was born. ---
**Author:** ![Eats\_Crayons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Eats\_Crayons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eats_Crayons)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/12 "2002-11-14T00:14:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Exapno Mapcase \* > \*\*If either **RM Mentock** or **Charmian** has a cite, I’m curious about any separate laws for parody under US federal statutes. To say that it is treated under “fair use” is not by itself meaningful: that’s just a point of existing general copyright laws. > \*\* The most basic (and it’s _extremely_ general) would be at the [U.S. Copyright Office](http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fairuse.html) which clumps “parody” into the “fair use” category. It’s not so much in statute as in doctrine that evolved as a result of case law – trying to balance of the rights of authors to control their works with First Amendment rights to make ha-ha fun of the authors’ works. In practise, I thought U.S. court decisions are pretty much based on the same criteria as in the UK and Canada, particularly substantiality, originality and whether or not it would have an effect on the market value of the work. I’m in Canada, so I’m not asup-to-date on the U.S. laws – I was still under the impression that the “fair use” code was still a little wishy-washy (“criticism” being kind of open to interpretation) and that they also rely heavliy on case law. I’ll have to check out **Pencil’s** cite. One extra note on Weird Al – presumably he does pay mechanical royalties for the use of the musical composition. So most songwriters wouldn’t be complaining too much because they’d get a portion of royalties (…at what, 7 or 8 cents a song per copy sold?) ---
**Author:** ![Eats\_Crayons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Eats\_Crayons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eats_Crayons)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/13 "2002-11-14T00:24:12Z")
[!28[level+case+citation!3A]!7C[level+case+elements!3A]!29/doc/{t3}/hit\_headings/words=4/pageitems={body}?"]Ah, here’s a link to **Pencil’s** cite]([http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/copyrtcases/query=](http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/copyrtcases/query=)[group+114sct1164!3A)… 2Live Crew doing a parody of Roy Orbison. Geez, took them long enought to make their decision. Argued November 9, 1993, decided March 7, 1994. It’s so much fast on _Law & Order_… ---
**Author:** ![davesink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/cc9497/32.png) [@davesink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davesink)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/14 "2002-11-14T00:25:50Z")
I thought the OP ws in reference to the current “Tanya Grotter” debate: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2261752.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2261752.stm) It seems the line between parody and outright plagerism is an extremely fine one. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/15 "2002-11-14T01:38:25Z")
> [@](#): > > The Supreme Court of the United States took a look at the class of works called “parodies” and decided that all parodies should be classified under fair use. Hence the exception for parodies was born. I thought the right to do parodies had something to do with the First Amendment. > [@](#): > > I thought the OP ws in reference to the current “Tanya Grotter” debate: > > It seems the line between parody and outright plagerism is an extremely fine one. Not really, at least not in this case. From everything I have heard, Tanya Grotter is nearly identical to Harry Potter in every aspect. The author has defended it as a “parody”, but has done nothing to explain how it is a parody–that is, how it pokes fun at Harry Potter. If it made fun of Harry like National Lampoons made fun of “Lord of the Rings” with “Bored of the Rings”, then I’d understand. But so far it just seems like plagiarism. ---
**Author:** ![Pencil\_Pusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Pencil\_Pusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pencil_Pusher)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/16 "2002-11-14T01:46:42Z")
I haven’t looked into it in a while, but I think mechanical royalties only apply for songs that are only changed to the extent necessary to fit the song into an artist’s particular style. Mechanical royalties don’t cover changing Roy Orbison’s “Oh Pretty Woman” to 2 Live Crew’s “Pretty Woman.” I should note that whether Weird Al’s songs _would_ be considered a parody is not so clear cut. It would probably depend on the song. “Smells Like Nirvana” is probably a parody (the song just makes fun of Nirvana), but “The Saga Begins” is a song about Star Wars, and has nothing to do with Don McLean’s American Pie. Additionally, both songs would have an uphill battle explaining to the court why it was necessary to appropriate the entire melody, when only a few bars would be necessary to conjure up the song in the minds of listeners. ---
**Author:** ![ElwoodCuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/edb3f5/32.png) [@ElwoodCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElwoodCuse)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/17 "2002-11-14T07:06:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Exapno Mapcase \* > \*\*But you can quickly get into trouble if you try to include a trademark in your parody - as you will quickly find out if you include a Disney character. \*\* It might attract lawyers, but aren’t the parody makers still in the right? I’m sure I’ve seen plenty of trademarks in, say, MAD Magazine. ---
**Author:** ![Pencil\_Pusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Pencil\_Pusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pencil_Pusher)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/18 "2002-11-14T07:34:03Z")
Anyone can use a trademark. Doesn’t matter whether its a parody or not. I can freely say, print or advertise: “Thomas Kinkade, Painter of light is the worst kind of producer of corporate art, whose publicly traded company, Media Arts Group, sells a lifestyle to a certain demographic who wouldn’t know art if they fell over a Rembrandt” Now, if any part of that statement was false, I might be able to be sued for libel (or is it slander, I can never remember). But I am still free to use any trademark however I see fit, Furthermore, I am under no obligation to use either a circle-R symbol or a tiny TM. The only thing I can’t do is use any of the Media Arts Group trademarks as a “source identifier.” I can’t go around touting myself as the “Painter of Light.” However, there is nothing wrong with selling a used Mustang and calling it a used Ford Mustang, commenting on the crappy performance of a Microsoft product, or even selling a PB&J, made with Peter Pan peanut butter. As long as I’m not using the trademark as a way to confuse people to believe that the trademark holder is in some way affiliated with you. ---
**Author:** ![Eats\_Crayons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Eats\_Crayons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eats_Crayons)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/19 "2002-11-14T13:23:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pencil Pusher \* > \*\*I haven’t looked into it in a while, but I think mechanical royalties only apply for songs that are only changed to the extent necessary to fit the song into an artist’s particular style. Mechanical royalties don’t cover changing Roy Orbison’s “Oh Pretty Woman” to 2 Live Crew’s “Pretty Woman.” > \*\* I was referring to Wierd Al, not the 2 Live Crew parody. A mechanical licence is required for the use of a composition in a recording (destined for distribution). It doesn’t matter if your cover version is really similar to the orininal of if they style is changed dramatically. You still have to pay mechanicals for the use of composition. (If your song has sampled bits, the licencing get even messier, let’s not even go there.) This is in part where it can get a little messy when it comes to parodies. Weird Al most likely does pay mechanicals because he is using entire compositions and is more or less doing a “cover version”. I haven’t heard the 2 Live Crew parody, but the legal cite suggests that they substantially changed the character of the composition to the point where it was a bit more “original parody”. (Dammit, now I’m going to have to go and find it to satisfy my curiosity!) Yuck, I’m just realizing how messy parodies can get. This would be a good conversation to have over lunch with our IP lawyer. She smart! ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516/20 "2002-11-14T13:37:16Z")
Chubbs, just in case you are asking the question because you are thinking of doing some specific parody, or have already done so and are concerned about legal consequences: Obviously, the comments people make here – no matter how well-intended or well-informed – do NOT replace legal advice. You should get a lawyer to look over your specific situation. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-parodies-exempt-from-copyright-laws/136516.md?page=2)