RE: Eminem & Weird Al Yankovic

["Brian Geoghegan" <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, the problem is that Weird Al's works don't qualify as "parody", as
the Supreme Court has defined that term, even though the popular press still
refers to them as such.

A parody protected as fair use uses the original work TO MAKE FUN OF THE
ORIGINAL ITSELF, so it's a critique or commentary on the original work.  For
example, 2 Live Crew thought Orbison's wholesome, romantic image of women
was unrealistically idealistic.  So they changed the words to reflect a
different reality, one where women were "ho's".  Although offensive to
Orbison, that was protected parody, because it used the original to comment
on the original itself.

In contrast, the Court distinguished protected "parody" from "satire", which
the Court defined as  using a work to comment on SOMETHING ELSE, UNRELATED
TO THE ORIGINAL WORK.  Satire, thus defined, is not protected.  Rather, it's
infringement.

For example, a few years ago, someone released a book called (I think) "The
Cat not in the Hat", which used Seussian rhyme and characters to poke fun at
O.J. Simpson.  The use of Dr. Seuss' work was unnecessary, and unrelated, to
the point of the new work, lampooning O.J.  The point could have been made
in countless other ways, rather than using the Seuss work as the vehicle.
Therefore, the book was found to be infringing.

Weird Al's works are more satire than parody, in the legal sense.  He
doesn't comment on or poke fun at the original works, but creates entirely
new, typically silly, themes.  For example, "Beat it" became "Eat it", which
has as its theme gluttony, which is totally unrelated to Jackson's original
theme.

This is probably why Weird Al has been so successful getting permission for
his remakes; he doesn't make fun of, or belittle, the originals.  He just
uses the originals to create silly derivative works.  So the original owner
suffers no embarrassment or other harm, as is usually the case with actual
parodies, like the skanky remake of Orbison's "Pretty Woman".  But creating
silly derivative works isn't protected by fair use, or the First Amendment,
and requires permission.

-----------------------------------
Brian Geoghegan
GeoMark
Trademark & Copyright Law
brian@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian@xxxxxxxxxx>
(206) 282-7199 (voice)
(206) 290-6481 (mobile)
(559) 328-1442 (fax)
Office: 900 Aurora Ave. N., #302, Seattle, WA 98109
Mail: P.O. Box 21914, Seattle, WA 98111
-----------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Lowney [mailto:flowney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 4:58 PM
To: digital-copyright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Eminem & Weird Al Yankovic


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_Expres
s&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?


--
=====================================================================
Dr. Frank Lowney  flowney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
     Director, Electronic Instructional Services, a unit of the
     Office of Information and Instructional Technology,
     Professional Pages: http://www.gcsu.edu/oiit/eis/
     Personal Pages: http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~flowney
Voice: (478) 445-5260
=====================================================================
We don't make instruction effective, we make effective instruction
more accessible.