Parody Is Fair Use, Satire Is Not

[Tarmack]

Fair use does not typically look at whether you're making money off the copyrighted material. I highly recommend you watch "Common myths about fair use & copyright" by Stanford, and "CIS fair use legal experts answer fair use questions"

That's not true.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

 

[offbeatbryce]

Fair use does not typically look at whether you're making money off the copyrighted material. I highly recommend you watch "Common myths about fair use & copyright" by Stanford, and "CIS fair use legal experts answer fair use questions"

What are you talking about? one of the four factors of fair use is whether you made money. I don't know why you are disputing what I said. This information comes from my copyright attorney.

 

[RyanH]

What are you talking about? one of the four factors of fair use is whether you made money. I don't know why you are disputing what I said. This information comes from my copyright attorney.

I'm quoting a piece from the video fair use experts did about fair use. According to them, making money is not typically a deciding factor for the courts.

I may have got my facts mixed up, but that was coming from supposed legal experts in that field.

 

[offbeatbryce]

This is very confusing.

According to the YouTube network We Are The Hits I'm with that gives you permission to monetize cover songs on YouTube. You don't need permission from the any publisher or song writer even if you steal a song and use it in your own or make a derivative work such as weird al taking Michael Jackson and making it into food. What Weird Al does is not fair use. It's satire. We Are The Hits agreement I signed doesn't even state anything about lyric changes or satire or even fair use. Just say that a YouTube user has the right to cover a song as is and share revenue.

I even checked with the publishers We Are The Hits is partnerd with to allow cover songs and the copyright department tells me that I still need permission from the song writers and publisher before making lyric changes especially if it's a derivative or satire work.

I showed We Are The Hits these emails I received and they are disagreeing with me saying they've let it happen for 3 years now for anyone to do what they want.

 

[Tarmack]

Well, a cover is not derivative. If We Are The Hits has a license to allow covers, that is different from a contract stating they have the legal power to authorize derivative works. If the publisher copyright department is saying they don't, unless WATH can dispute that with some sort of evidence, I'd be very wary around it.

It's also extremely weird for a company to provide that kind of legal authority. For lots of reasons, but one example would be material that makes the artist look bad. If you do a cover, and you suck, you look bad but the artist is fine. They don't need to control each and every instance of a cover because they know what the original composition is like.

For an arrangement or derivative work however, you could be rearranging a song so that it has a racist overtone, or any number of other things which could cause damage to the brand. Thus, as a copyright owner you're unlikely to let other companies or people make that decision for you, with the exception of the big music publishers who buy the exclusive rights from the artists.

Further, if ANYONE tells you that you can totally do something, but its' not in your contract, be very careful. Networks do this kind of "selling" feature nonsense all the time. I'm sure they have been doing it for 3 years. Doesn't make it legal, especially if they disavow all knowledge of it if it ever goes to court.

 

[offbeatbryce]

Well, a cover is not derivative. If We Are The Hits has a license to allow covers, that is different from a contract stating they have the legal power to authorize derivative works. If the publisher copyright department is saying they don't, unless WATH can dispute that with some sort of evidence, I'd be very wary around it.

It's also extremely weird for a company to provide that kind of legal authority. For lots of reasons, but one example would be material that makes the artist look bad. If you do a cover, and you suck, you look bad but the artist is fine. They don't need to control each and every instance of a cover because they know what the original composition is like.

For an arrangement or derivative work however, you could be rearranging a song so that it has a racist overtone, or any number of other things which could cause damage to the brand. Thus, as a copyright owner you're unlikely to let other companies or people make that decision for you, with the exception of the big music publishers who buy the exclusive rights from the artists.

Further, if ANYONE tells you that you can totally do something, but its' not in your contract, be very careful. Networks do this kind of "selling" feature nonsense all the time. I'm sure they have been doing it for 3 years. Doesn't make it legal, especially if they disavow all knowledge of it if it ever goes to court.

That's what I'm thinking. I felt it was weird as well. Bart Baker is through We Are The Hits and he says lots of mean things about the songs he parodies and I'm sure if someone wanted to they could sue him

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

I know that for a while the networks had a special exception to the Content-ID system, which made it so none of the videos uploaded by members were scanned by Content-ID (they could still be manually claimed, though). That has since been changed. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with it.

 

[offbeatbryce]

I know that for a while the networks had a special exception to the Content-ID system, which made it so none of the videos uploaded by members were scanned by Content-ID (they could still be manually claimed, though). That has since been changed. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with it.

But the contract agreement does not state derivative works.[DOUBLEPOST=1449110144,1449083411][/DOUBLEPOST]

Well, a cover is not derivative. If We Are The Hits has a license to allow covers, that is different from a contract stating they have the legal power to authorize derivative works. If the publisher copyright department is saying they don't, unless WATH can dispute that with some sort of evidence, I'd be very wary around it.

It's also extremely weird for a company to provide that kind of legal authority. For lots of reasons, but one example would be material that makes the artist look bad. If you do a cover, and you suck, you look bad but the artist is fine. They don't need to control each and every instance of a cover because they know what the original composition is like.

For an arrangement or derivative work however, you could be rearranging a song so that it has a racist overtone, or any number of other things which could cause damage to the brand. Thus, as a copyright owner you're unlikely to let other companies or people make that decision for you, with the exception of the big music publishers who buy the exclusive rights from the artists.

Further, if ANYONE tells you that you can totally do something, but its' not in your contract, be very careful. Networks do this kind of "selling" feature nonsense all the time. I'm sure they have been doing it for 3 years. Doesn't make it legal, especially if they disavow all knowledge of it if it ever goes to court.

So I emailed Sony and Kobalt which is listed on We Are The Hits as being signed with them to allow cover songs. Sony and Kobalt say I need permission for a derivative work and that We Are The Hits is wrong. I forwarded those emails to We Are The Hits and they still say I don't need permission. So weird[DOUBLEPOST=1449179220][/DOUBLEPOST]

Well, a cover is not derivative. If We Are The Hits has a license to allow covers, that is different from a contract stating they have the legal power to authorize derivative works. If the publisher copyright department is saying they don't, unless WATH can dispute that with some sort of evidence, I'd be very wary around it.

It's also extremely weird for a company to provide that kind of legal authority. For lots of reasons, but one example would be material that makes the artist look bad. If you do a cover, and you suck, you look bad but the artist is fine. They don't need to control each and every instance of a cover because they know what the original composition is like.

For an arrangement or derivative work however, you could be rearranging a song so that it has a racist overtone, or any number of other things which could cause damage to the brand. Thus, as a copyright owner you're unlikely to let other companies or people make that decision for you, with the exception of the big music publishers who buy the exclusive rights from the artists.

Further, if ANYONE tells you that you can totally do something, but its' not in your contract, be very careful. Networks do this kind of "selling" feature nonsense all the time. I'm sure they have been doing it for 3 years. Doesn't make it legal, especially if they disavow all knowledge of it if it ever goes to court.

Now I'm even more confused. I just received an email from a guy at Sony music after being given his email during a phone call with Sony. This guy says We Are The Hits gives me permission to make any lyric change for YouTube. If that is really the case why is that when I went to Sony to get permission to make a Justin Bieber parody I was denied permission? This guy who denied my Bieber parody works at Sony but in the licensing department. This other guy's Job Title is YouTube Coordinator. I told him my Youtube Network was We Are The Hits. So now I have two people at Sony telling me conflicting things.

 

[DerpTheCowardlyMan]

Great read! I will use this for future reference. Fair use laws are really confusing for a small YouTuber like meh.

 

[Andrewcu]

The OP's explanation makes sense, but I don't understand how creators like Chad Wild Clay manages to get away with all his 'parodies'. The ones I watched have nothing to do with the original artist or song.