> You did not define parody [...] That is a definition, it's a very broad, very vague definition, but is it a definition. I'm not going to engage with your spu

> You did not define parody [...] That is a definition, it's a very broad, very vague definition, but is it a definition. I'm not going to engage with your spurious nonsense about "art". If you cant separate "art" and "parody" for even two sentences, it's not worth discussing definitions with you. > Factually inaccurate -- there's literally an entire subsection about parody in the article on fair use in Wikipedia Fair use is a doctrine of copyright, which I stated explicitly i was ignoring. I will not be responding further.