4 ms·

Right. It surprises a lot of people that the law on parody hinges on whether the humorous target of the parody is the work it itself is parodying or something e

Right. It surprises a lot of people that the law on parody hinges on whether the humorous target of the parody is the work it itself is parodying or something else. From the ruling, quoted in the article: > ’Boldly’ is not a parody. ComicMix does not seriously contend that ‘Boldly’ critiques or comments on ‘Go!.’ When most people think of parody they think of things like Weird Al Yankovic songs (as this article mentions), which definitely don't critique or comment on the songs they're based on - Eat It says nothing about Beat It; The Saga Begins doesn't have anything to say about American Pie. And of course it doesn't actually matter: somewhat famously, Weird Al actually licenses the songs he uses in his 'parodies', and doesn't rely on the 'right to parody' at all. But the layman's meaning of parody persists. Weird Al's own FAQ says: > Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it’s important to maintain the relationships that he’s built with artists and writers over the years. (https://www.weirdal.com/archives/faq/#:~:text=Al%20does%20get%20permission%20from,and%20writers%20over%20the%20years https://www.weirdal.com/archives/faq/#:~:text=Al%20does%20ge....) So it's maybe not surprising that there's a pretty broad cultural understanding that 'parody' means 'transforming something copyrighted in a way that's sort of funny'. I mean, the Wikipedia article for The Saga Begins literally starts: > "The Saga Begins" is a parody song by "Weird Al" Yankovic. It parodies "American Pie" by Don McLean... But the law disagrees. It's not a parody in the sense of parodic 'fair use'. As far as copyright law is concerned, it's a derivative work, and Don McLean can dictate the terms under which Weird Al is allowed to publish it.

jancsika 6y ago
> It surprises a lot of people that the law on parody hinges on whether the humorous target of the parody is the work it itself is parodying or something else. You haven't finished your documentation yet. Like: "The value returned by detonate() depends on whether or not the method succeeded or failed." Edit: clarification
- wtallis 6y ago
  Your comment is even more obtuse than the one you are complaining about. You meant to ask: Does the law's protection of parodies require that the parody target the work it is a parody of, or to target something else?
GauntletWizard 6y ago
There’s multiple parts to Weird Al’s Licensing scenario, because oddly - The law separates out copyright on what we broadly know as “songs” into two parts. The lyrics are legally distinct from the melody that they are sung to[1]. Weird Al licenses his parodies, both the lyrics and the music, but additionally asks for permission from the singer/songwriter out of respect for the artists. Often the copyrights on both lyrics and melody are assigned to someone (or usually, corporate entity) other than what we think of as the “Artist”. He possibly (depending on the song in question) has a legal case for some of his lyrical parodies (Not so much “The Saga Begins”, but “Addicted to Spuds” is certainly a parody of love songs in general and “Addicted To Love” in that blast radius), but he plays the original melody, and that requires him to license his work. Apropos but distinct: Figuring out the copyrighting entity, or if there’s a copyright at all, is itself a challenge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyrigh... [1]https://www.copyrightuser.org/create/creative-process/going-for-a-song-track-1/ https://www.copyrightuser.org/create/creative-process/going-...
- sitharus 6y ago
  Another important point is that in the USA the license for the lyrics is subject to copyright holder approvals and price negotiations. The music however is subject to a compulsory license. Anyone can pay the fee and perform the music.
- Talanes 6y ago
  His own comments on the matter are that it come down more to a matter of politics than actual legality. At least, in the one case[1] that a record label (rather than the artist) told him no, he seemed confident that he could still have sold the song, and he had no problem releasing it anyway. {1}https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5482774 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=548277...
- jameshart 6y ago
  Yeah, I think Weird Al does occasionally do parody in the legal sense. Amish Paradise for example definitely has something to say about the relationship of hip hop and gangsta culture, which is probably protected parody.
itronitron 6y ago
Can you give an example of what you would consider to be an actual parody? Because I think that 'The Saga Begins' is indeed making fun of 'American Pie.' Weird Al is not simply adding any lyrics over the song but instead chose a long and convoluted story arc that awkwardly fits into American Pie's song structure. By including so much story detail from Star Wars into the song Weird Al effectively points out how ridiculous the profound but ultimately meaningless character archetypes are in the original song.
- jameshart 6y ago
  No he’s not. He’s just using a song that starts with the line ‘a long long time ago’ to tell a story that starts ‘long ago in a galaxy far away’. American Pie is filled with metaphors and allusions and is an impressionistic tale of the declining optimism of the sixties after the original exuberant promise of rock ‘n’ roll was lost in the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly. The Saga Begins is a literal retelling of the story of The Phantom Menace - it doesn’t allude to themes or disillusionment or draw a clever parallel between the narratives. It doesn’t comment on American Pie or even on The Phantom Menace. It’s just a ‘humorous’ cross-cultural mashup of two copyrighted properties. But that’s irrelevant, anyway. The point isn’t what I consider constitutes parody, but rather what the law considers as parody, which is specifically that if you are critiquing or lampooning a work, you are permitted to do so by borrowing from it and using elements that otherwise you would not be permitted to under copyright law. Its intent is not to say that ‘anything that’s just intended to be funny is exempt from copyright requirements’, it’s specifically to prevent copyright owners from suppressing criticism of their work using copyright law. So if you wrote alternative lyrics to American Pie that, for example, drew attention to the fact that its rose tinted view of sock hops and rock ‘n’ roll at the end of the fifties is rooted in a privileged white perspective, Don McLean would not be able to use copyright law to stop you publishing that. But if you decided to just tell the story of a movie using Don McLean’s music, he is well within his rights to tell you you can’t (or come to a license agreement with you so that you can). Weirdly, though, now that Weird Al has been there and done that, if you were to write an alternative set of lyrics to the Saga Begins that told the story of some obscure art house movie, say, parodying the way Weird Al used the song to just retell a movie plot... you might have a parody defense.

jancsika 6y ago

> It surprises a lot of people that the law on parody hinges on whether the humorous target of the parody is the work it itself is parodying or something else. You haven't finished your documentation yet. Like: "The value returned by detonate() depends on whether or not the method succeeded or failed." Edit: clarification

wtallis 6y ago
Your comment is even more obtuse than the one you are complaining about. You meant to ask: Does the law's protection of parodies require that the parody target the work it is a parody of, or to target something else?

GauntletWizard 6y ago

There’s multiple parts to Weird Al’s Licensing scenario, because oddly - The law separates out copyright on what we broadly know as “songs” into two parts. The lyrics are legally distinct from the melody that they are sung to[1]. Weird Al licenses his parodies, both the lyrics and the music, but additionally asks for permission from the singer/songwriter out of respect for the artists. Often the copyrights on both lyrics and melody are assigned to someone (or usually, corporate entity) other than what we think of as the “Artist”. He possibly (depending on the song in question) has a legal case for some of his lyrical parodies (Not so much “The Saga Begins”, but “Addicted to Spuds” is certainly a parody of love songs in general and “Addicted To Love” in that blast radius), but he plays the original melody, and that requires him to license his work. Apropos but distinct: Figuring out the copyrighting entity, or if there’s a copyright at all, is itself a challenge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyrigh... [1]https://www.copyrightuser.org/create/creative-process/going-for-a-song-track-1/ https://www.copyrightuser.org/create/creative-process/going-...

sitharus 6y ago
Another important point is that in the USA the license for the lyrics is subject to copyright holder approvals and price negotiations. The music however is subject to a compulsory license. Anyone can pay the fee and perform the music.
Talanes 6y ago
His own comments on the matter are that it come down more to a matter of politics than actual legality. At least, in the one case[1] that a record label (rather than the artist) told him no, he seemed confident that he could still have sold the song, and he had no problem releasing it anyway. {1}https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5482774 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=548277...
jameshart 6y ago
Yeah, I think Weird Al does occasionally do parody in the legal sense. Amish Paradise for example definitely has something to say about the relationship of hip hop and gangsta culture, which is probably protected parody.

itronitron 6y ago

Can you give an example of what you would consider to be an actual parody? Because I think that 'The Saga Begins' is indeed making fun of 'American Pie.' Weird Al is not simply adding any lyrics over the song but instead chose a long and convoluted story arc that awkwardly fits into American Pie's song structure. By including so much story detail from Star Wars into the song Weird Al effectively points out how ridiculous the profound but ultimately meaningless character archetypes are in the original song.

jameshart 6y ago
No he’s not. He’s just using a song that starts with the line ‘a long long time ago’ to tell a story that starts ‘long ago in a galaxy far away’. American Pie is filled with metaphors and allusions and is an impressionistic tale of the declining optimism of the sixties after the original exuberant promise of rock ‘n’ roll was lost in the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly. The Saga Begins is a literal retelling of the story of The Phantom Menace - it doesn’t allude to themes or disillusionment or draw a clever parallel between the narratives. It doesn’t comment on American Pie or even on The Phantom Menace. It’s just a ‘humorous’ cross-cultural mashup of two copyrighted properties. But that’s irrelevant, anyway. The point isn’t what I consider constitutes parody, but rather what the law considers as parody, which is specifically that if you are critiquing or lampooning a work, you are permitted to do so by borrowing from it and using elements that otherwise you would not be permitted to under copyright law. Its intent is not to say that ‘anything that’s just intended to be funny is exempt from copyright requirements’, it’s specifically to prevent copyright owners from suppressing criticism of their work using copyright law. So if you wrote alternative lyrics to American Pie that, for example, drew attention to the fact that its rose tinted view of sock hops and rock ‘n’ roll at the end of the fifties is rooted in a privileged white perspective, Don McLean would not be able to use copyright law to stop you publishing that. But if you decided to just tell the story of a movie using Don McLean’s music, he is well within his rights to tell you you can’t (or come to a license agreement with you so that you can). Weirdly, though, now that Weird Al has been there and done that, if you were to write an alternative set of lyrics to the Saga Begins that told the story of some obscure art house movie, say, parodying the way Weird Al used the song to just retell a movie plot... you might have a parody defense.