4 ms·

>Its a little tricky.. Even Weird Al gets the original artist's permission. Weird Al's preferences don't add any strength [evidence] to any argument regarding

>Its a little tricky.. Even Weird Al gets the original artist's permission. Weird Al's preferences don't add any strength [evidence] to any argument regarding the legality.

not2b 6y ago
Weird Al is trying to save himself trouble, because going to court can be expensive even when you win. He can legally do parodies without consent, but since so many people are happy to give him permission, that's the easier route for him.
- minimaxir 6y ago
  See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_Pitiful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_Pitiful > While Blunt himself had no issues with Yankovic recording the parody, Blunt's record label Atlantic did; they forbade Yankovic from commercially releasing the song at the last minute. Yankovic eventually released the song online as a veritable free single; furthermore, in music videos and during live performances, Yankovic has made reference to his dispute with Atlantic. Since the initial debacle in 2006, Yankovic has occasionally reached out to Blunt and his label to see if he can release the song on compilations. However, each time that he has approached Atlantic Records, he has been denied permission.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    If Blunt had said no and his publisher said yes, Yankovic wouldn't have released a song even for free. So it seems Yankovic considers asking for permission to be both a matter of courtesy and liability, with more apparent emphasis on courtesy.
- dtech 6y ago
  Most of Weird Al's songs aren't parodies in the legal sense. "Party in the CIA" is just "Party in the USA" with different Lyrics, it's not protected, just like most covers aren't. "Smells like Nirvana" is, because it directly references and parodies how the singer in the song is barely understandable.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    Where would White and Nerdy place? It's not a direct comment on the original artist, but it is intentionally playing with a reversal of the stereotypes associated with the original piece.
    - markmark 6y ago
      Only a court can decide that. Parody is a defence in a copyright infringement case when it comes down to it, which is why Weird Al just gets permission instead. There's a lot of uncertainty on the edges. It's interesting to read about the trouble Penny Arcade had https://whatever.scalzi.com/2003/04/25/strawberry-shortcake-and-penny-arcade/ https://whatever.scalzi.com/2003/04/25/strawberry-shortcake-...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

>Its a little tricky.. Even Weird Al gets the original artist's permission. Weird Al's preferences don't add any strength [evidence] to any argument regarding the legality.

not2b 6y ago

Weird Al is trying to save himself trouble, because going to court can be expensive even when you win. He can legally do parodies without consent, but since so many people are happy to give him permission, that's the easier route for him.

minimaxir 6y ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_Pitiful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_Pitiful > While Blunt himself had no issues with Yankovic recording the parody, Blunt's record label Atlantic did; they forbade Yankovic from commercially releasing the song at the last minute. Yankovic eventually released the song online as a veritable free single; furthermore, in music videos and during live performances, Yankovic has made reference to his dispute with Atlantic. Since the initial debacle in 2006, Yankovic has occasionally reached out to Blunt and his label to see if he can release the song on compilations. However, each time that he has approached Atlantic Records, he has been denied permission.
- catalogia 6y ago
  If Blunt had said no and his publisher said yes, Yankovic wouldn't have released a song even for free. So it seems Yankovic considers asking for permission to be both a matter of courtesy and liability, with more apparent emphasis on courtesy.
dtech 6y ago
Most of Weird Al's songs aren't parodies in the legal sense. "Party in the CIA" is just "Party in the USA" with different Lyrics, it's not protected, just like most covers aren't. "Smells like Nirvana" is, because it directly references and parodies how the singer in the song is barely understandable.
- Talanes 6y ago
  Where would White and Nerdy place? It's not a direct comment on the original artist, but it is intentionally playing with a reversal of the stereotypes associated with the original piece.
  - markmark 6y ago
    Only a court can decide that. Parody is a defence in a copyright infringement case when it comes down to it, which is why Weird Al just gets permission instead. There's a lot of uncertainty on the edges. It's interesting to read about the trouble Penny Arcade had https://whatever.scalzi.com/2003/04/25/strawberry-shortcake-and-penny-arcade/ https://whatever.scalzi.com/2003/04/25/strawberry-shortcake-...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]