At 07:57 PM 5/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
I read with interest the news that Eminem has "disallowed" Weird Al
Yankovic from parodying his video but not the song.
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2003&dt=0511&pub=Utusan_Express&sec=Entertainment&pg=en_08.htm
It is my understanding that parody is a fair use and does not require
securing permissions from anyone. So, why are all the news accounts of
this taking the tone that Eminem has a right to forbid parody?
As a fair use Parody may always be challenged by the copyright owner. The
courts have differentiated different kinds of parody, distinguishing, for
instance, between "parody" and "burlesque," if I remember correctly. I
think the differentiation considers the purpose of the parody. If you are
using copyrighted materials to make fun of the materials itself, it may not
be a fair use; but if you use the protected work to make a social or
critical statement (as in "The Wind Done Gone" case) the parody rises to
protectable status. And even then, it may be challenged.
For this reason, Weird Al, I believe, has always asked for permission to
parody his subjects. In today's litigious atmosphere it is easy enough to
sympathize with such a policy decision. Perhaps he and his advisors
reasoned that there is so much material out there just asking to be used
that it is not worth getting embroiled in nasty (and expensive) litigation
brouhahas.
Assuming I have correctly remembered the distinction between parody and
burlesque, I'd question the lower status awarded to Burlesque as a fair
use. Making fun of a person or his works, to me seems like a form of social
and/or aesthetic commentary, where example substitutes for narrative or
literary commentary.
===========================
Robert A. Baron
mailto:robert@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.studiolo.org