3 ms·
It's clear that's what you mean. But derivative works are covered under the copyright of the original. Not just exact versions. That's why I can't go out and r
by adrianmonk 8y ago
It's clear that's what you mean. But derivative works are covered under the copyright of the original. Not just exact versions.
That's why I can't go out and record a cover version of a Beatles song without paying to license it. It would be a derivative work, and not covered under fair use. Weird Al probably can, though, because parody is fair use.
- tialaramex 8y agoWeird Al could claim parody fair use for a few tracks like Smells Like Nirvana which are actually parodying the thing used, but (a) that only covers a handful of his works and more importantly (b) he never does this for recordings, fair use is an affirmative defence. You have to wait until you get sued, then raise it and maybe if you have good lawyers that works. Even for Weird Al that's not a fun risk. For something like, say, Amish Paradise or Tacky the new work is not a parody of the work it derives from, it had nothing to say about that work except "Ha, this is funny if you change the words". So it would probably never be fair use. Instead Weird Al gets legal OK to use the work. Yes, all those artists, or their labels actually think Weird Al is funny, or at least they'll take the money.