Curious - What's the deal with Parodies/spoofs?

ALLWritety said:

1) What is the Law regarding Parodies/spoofs? I think UK & US laws are different.
2) What about copy right regarding the film(s) spoofed?
3) Could some one just write a parody/spoof or would they need to get permission & rights form each film that was spoofed?

Click to expand...

IANAL

That really boils down to one question and one answer. You have every legal and moral right to create a parody of a work in the US (I know nothing about the situation in the UK), but that does not mean that someone can't sue you.

IP issues have become such ridiculous and corrupt money grabs, you really have no guarantee that someone will not bring a frivolous action against you that you cannot afford to defend, even if you are in the right.

That being said, parodies still get made.

ejket said:

You have every legal and moral right to create a parody of a work in the US (I know nothing about the situation in the UK), but that does not mean that someone can't sue you.

Click to expand...

There's a couple of things to note here.

For a start, yes - there is an exception in copyright law for parodies. However:

1. 'Parody' in copyright law has a very specific meaning and may not line up 100% with the way non-lawyers use the word. It must be about commenting on the copyrighted work - not about commenting on something else.

2. That exception is all about copyright violations - it says absolutely nothing about the thousands of other laws (right of publicity, moral rights etc)

For it to be a 'parody' you must be parodying the actual copyrighted work itself. For example - if I do a parody of 'Lord of the Rings' movie, then I can use the copyrighted script as a basis - because that it what I am parodying. However - that doesn't give an exemption to breaching the copyright of other things - such as the music score - which may not be what I'm actually parodying.

Also it needs to not compete in the same market as the original. (Yes - I'm oversimplifying the heck out of this) So I parody of a drama would become a comedy .. and be a simpler thing legally than a parody of a comedy - which would still be a comedy.

Sometimes people just change the genre of the film and call it a 'parody' to say "Look - I know I can't legally do this. But I can make you spend a fortune in legal bills to prove it and I don't have many assets so you'll never make a cent back." The porn versions of popular films rely on this - but sometimes the original filmmakers are stubborn enough that they can stop them

People threaten over them all the time .. but often just to the extent of sending a letter or muttering in the press. So the parody 'The Six Thousand Dollar man' (a version of the 'Six Million Dollar Man' during government cutbacks .. so his 'super' strengths were lame) was threatened by .. ironically .. the film makers behind the 'Scary Movie' franchise! Yes, they understood entirely about the parody exception .. but it is sometimes just about stamping your foot and objecting for the sake of it.

They are my thoughts, anyway.

Good luck!

Mac

ALLWritety said:

HI All

First let me state that this thread is not to talk about individual films or if they are good or bad.

My Q's are:

1) What is the Law regarding Parodies/spoofs? I think UK & US laws are different.
2) What about copy right regarding the film(s) spoofed?
3) Could some one just write a parody/spoof or would they need to get permission & rights form each film that was spoofed?


Kev

Click to expand...

You really need to talk to legal to get the right answers.

It's not unusual to phone a law firm and ask their specialist lawyers general questions like this. They will respond, in a limited way, on the assumption that it could bring in business later.

Mac H. said:

1. 'Parody' in copyright law has a very specific meaning

Click to expand...

The words "parody" and "parodies" do not appear in US copyright law. I can't speak for that of other countries.

A search for Allan Sherman and his parodies turns up this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Sherman#Song_parodies

However, Sherman had trouble in getting permission to record for profit from some of the well-known composers and lyricists, who did not tolerate parodies or satires of their melodies and lyrics, including Irving Berlin, Richard Rodgers, George and Ira Gershwin, Alan Jay Lerner, and Frederick Loewe, as well as the estates of Lorenz Hart, Oscar Hammerstein, Kurt Weill, and Bertolt Brecht, which prevented him from releasing parodies or satires of their songs. In the early 1960s, Sherman and Busch wrote a musical called "Fairfax Lady", a parody of My Fair Lady, without Alan Jay Lerner's approval. However, Lerner and Sherman agreed to a settlement, which permitted "Fairfax Lady" to be performed under strict conditions: it could only play at one theater in the Fairfax district of Los Angeles, no photos or visual record of the show be made, and no cast album could be recorded.

Click to expand...

Al Stevens said:

The words "parody" and "parodies" do not appear in US copyright law. I can't speak for that of other countries.

Click to expand...

Indeed not - although they appear explicitly in many other countries - It is stated as 'parody or satire') (but not defined!) in Australian copyright law (section 41A) and New Zealand is looking at putting it in explicitly.

I was more referring to the findings that 'parody' is counted as 'fair use' (or 'fair dealings' outside the USA) - particularly in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/510/569/case.html

That's often quoted as meaning 'parody is automatically fair use' - but if you read it carefully you'll see that the definition of 'parody' that the judge uses is quite a bit tighter than the normal use of the word in English.

• Craig Mazin (writer of one of the movies in the 'Scary Movie' franchise) also has a great writeup on the subject. I'll see if I can track it down.
  
• Rebecca Tushnet (a law professor) also has a nice summary of a recent case here:
  
  http://tushnet.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/elf-defense-parody-defeats-tm-and.html
  
  
• This is the one (along with Craig Mazin's commentary) that I usually simplify with the 'the legal definition of parody is different to the literary one':
  
  

  Contrary to legal caricatures, literary theory has multiple perspectives on parody, almost none of which rigidly distinguish parody-as-commentary-on-a-single-work from parody-as-commentary-on-culture
  
  http://tushnet.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/parody-and-magical-thinking.html

  Click to expand...

Mac