Parody Is Fair Use, Satire Is Not

[Ernie Jo]

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

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]

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.

Hey would you be able to point me in the direction of who you talked to at Sony? I have an issue with one of my videos that I'm certain is a parody (I read the OP's post and I feel it falls right in line with that, plus I did write a 16 page paper a couple years ago for an honors college class about parody so I know more than just a random person on the street). I tried disputing it through YouTube's system, I laid out in detail the evidence I had that my video was a parody, and I still got denied so now I'm at the point where if I dispute it further they could sue me. And I'd be willing to go toe to toe with them but I couldn't even afford to and win let alone if I lost.

So anyways, I tried emailing someone at Sony because that's who the artist is signed with and never got a response. Because I figured I may be able to talk to someone and get the video reinstated without worrying about them trying to destroy me.

 

[Tarmack]

Hey would you be able to point me in the direction of who you talked to at Sony? I have an issue with one of my videos that I'm certain is a parody (I read the OP's post and I feel it falls right in line with that, plus I did write a 16 page paper a couple years ago for an honors college class about parody so I know more than just a random person on the street). I tried disputing it through YouTube's system, I laid out in detail the evidence I had that my video was a parody, and I still got denied so now I'm at the point where if I dispute it further they could sue me. And I'd be willing to go toe to toe with them but I couldn't even afford to and win let alone if I lost.

So anyways, I tried emailing someone at Sony because that's who the artist is signed with and never got a response. Because I figured I may be able to talk to someone and get the video reinstated without worrying about them trying to destroy me.

A lot of people get really scared at that last stage of appeal. If you have a strong case for fair use under the Parody exception, even Sony is unlikely to attempt to take it further. To me, it has always seemed as a perfect storm for a channel. Having Sony actually file suit against you for a parody that fits very well in the definition of fair use could rally a lot of people to your side which could also be very good exposure for your channel. Remember, you're essentially daring them to make a legal claim against you. Even the big companies aren't stupid enough to go that far. They'll abuse the DMCA system as long as they can because it has no negative consequences, but a false copyright lawsuit on the other hand is very dangerous for them.

As an alternative, you could send a message to the EFF and see if you can get a second opinion that way.

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

A lot of people get really scared at that last stage of appeal. If you have a strong case for fair use under the Parody exception, even Sony is unlikely to attempt to take it further. To me, it has always seemed as a perfect storm for a channel. Having Sony actually file suit against you for a parody that fits very well in the definition of fair use could rally a lot of people to your side which could also be very good exposure for your channel. Remember, you're essentially daring them to make a legal claim against you. Even the big companies aren't stupid enough to go that far. They'll abuse the DMCA system as long as they can because it has no negative consequences, but a false copyright lawsuit on the other hand is very dangerous for them.

As an alternative, you could send a message to the EFF and see if you can get a second opinion that way.

I've felt the same. Imagine the publicity! Additionally, if it goes in your favor, it could set a precedent, which would make it easier for other future lawsuits of a similar nature to be ruled the same way. None of these large companies, especially those "anti-piracy" ones, want to risk something like that happening.

 

[Ernie Jo]

The issue is that there's a 0% chance I could afford legal fees even if I won haha.

Who's the EFF?

 

[offbeatbryce]

The issue is that there's a 0% chance I could afford legal fees even if I won haha.

Who's the EFF?

If your lawsuit is obviously fair use sometimes the judge tosses out the case without legal fees. With that said. I had to call Sony and get the YouTube Coordinator info. I don't have it off the top of my head. Sony does email me back all the time though. Probably because I know them.

Anyway, what is the name of the parody you made? I can make sure it's fair use.

 

[Ernie Jo]

the video has been taken down, but I can send you a link via google drive or something if you want to email me, josephfipps@gmail.com.

 

[offbeatbryce]

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.

Again, Any YouTuber could be getting permission or they haven't been caught or.... YouTube is earning so much money from the content ID claims they don't need to issue a strike. I know a few YouTubers who have had that happen.

 

[ParoDeeJay]

We got a takedown notice and our first strike in November, from a video that we'd uploaded about two years prior. Funny thing was, it's not even a current "popular" song... it was a Candy-Crush-themed song set to the tune of Jennifer Paige's 1998 hit "Crush"... but obviously, the age of the song doesn't affect copyright. The song lyrics don't reference the original song at all, which qualified that part as more satirical... and I think the only self-referential bit in the video was a "singing while sitting on a swing" scene that was a nod to a scene in the original music video. We decided not to press the issue of whether or not the tiny reference to the old video might remotely qualify our work as "parody", and just let the video die. Going by the self-referential yardstick, much of the stuff we've done would tend toward satire and the scary side of the copyright fence... huzzah... :/

 

[offbeatbryce]

We got a takedown notice and our first strike in November, from a video that we'd uploaded about two years prior. Funny thing was, it's not even a current "popular" song... it was a Candy-Crush-themed song set to the tune of Jennifer Paige's 1998 hit "Crush"... but obviously, the age of the song doesn't affect copyright. The song lyrics don't reference the original song at all, which qualified that part as more satirical... and I think the only self-referential bit in the video was a "singing while sitting on a swing" scene that was a nod to a scene in the original music video. We decided not to press the issue of whether or not the tiny reference to the old video might remotely qualify our work as "parody", and just let the video die. Going by the self-referential yardstick, much of the stuff we've done would tend toward satire and the scary side of the copyright fence... huzzah... :/

That would totally be a satire. Even the the Fancy one you made is not a parody. It's your call but I wouldn't risk it without permission.

 

[JMAAMusic]

The sad thing, and I know this would be pretty much off-topic, but still, is that if, for example, you do animations that don't necessarily revolve in parody, you're just pretty much screwed at the moment due to the non existant exposure you could not have compared to something that IS parody.

People go for easy targets, and go for familiar things. It's part of human nature.