Green Eggs & Spam

145 readers

1 users here now

A Place For Stuff.

Be Excellent To Each Other.

founded 3 months ago

MODERATORS

Deceptichum@quokk.au

232

Pokémon Formally Submits to the Department of Homeland Security's Use of Ash Ketchum and Pokémon Series Theme Tune (infosec.pub)

submitted 1 month ago by Deceptichum@quokk.au to c/greeneggsandspam@quokk.au

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Parody is one of the standard examples of fair use. Just ask Weird Al.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Very little of Weird Al's work counts as parody. Some of it does (or at least could), such as Smells Like Nirvana, because it is providing commentary or criticism of the original.

More of it counts as the broader category of satire, which has significantly lower legal protections.

However, the vast majority of his parodies would be defined as derivative works. If it's about food or TV, this is probably the category.

That being said, Al has never had any of this tested in court. He has a policy to get permission in advance, and that prevents any legal concerns. No one knows for sure how any courts would rule on the subject.

ETA: This site has a more thorough analysis. Al's work has a lot in common with the Dr Seuss case.
https://copyrightalliance.org/is-my-parody-fair-use/

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Then why did he have to ask permission from everyone? iirc he couldn't do The Kink's "Lola" for a long time because Ray Davies wouldn't allow it.

[–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He does get permission, because he doesn’t want to be a dick and also doesn’t want to have to go to court, but he technically doesn’t need it.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

This says

Often times, a court will apply the “likelihood of confusion” test to a parody case. Courts have noted that a successful parody will rarely be considered infringement because the ultimate object of a parody is to entertain and not confuse the listener or buyer. There is no perceived “threat of confusion” and it is unlikely that the original artist’s profits will be negatively impacted by Weird Al’s versions. Because of this, original recording artists are unlikely to have a cause of action against Mr. Yankovic.>

Despite the unlikelihood of litigation, Weird Al always obtains permission from the original artist. He has stated, ”I have a long-standing history of respecting artists' wishes. So if (the artist) himself were objecting, I wouldn't even offer my parody for free on my Web site.”

By obtaining official copyright permission from the artists, Weird Al’s attorneys negotiate royalties which vary from a flat fee buyout to royalty participation. Weird Al's financial success is likely responsible for the willingness of most copyright owners to grant him permission to parody their musical compositions. It as made it possible for Yankovic to bargain for a lucrative share in the copyright of the parody version of the song.

Curious how he doesn't get 100% royalties if the song is fair use.