Parody Is Fair Use, Satire Is Not

Tarmack said:
I've written a piece similar to this in various forum threads and at a certain point, my fingers get tired of doing the same things, so I figured I'd do one that I can just refer people to.

The vast majority of online content creators look at Fair Use rules and see the Parody provision, but they stop reading after getting it set in their mind that Parody just means funny (or attempting to be funny). By the legal definitions involved, this is not the case.

There are two kinds of "funny" defined in copyright law. The first is Parody and the second is Satire. They are not the same thing. I'm using the legally separate usages of these words as you will find in many dictionaries, they are considered the same thing.

A Parody is the utilization of a piece of content to make fun of that piece of content in some way. In my own research, there are numerous examples but Weird Al Yankovic takes the proverbial cake because his songs run the gamut of copyright and illustrate my point perfectly.

The Weird Al song Smells Like Nirvana is a Parody. He uses the base composition of the song Smells Like Teen Spirit in order to make fun of Nirvana as a band. The Fair Use connection is that logically, using a Nirvana song to make fun of Nirvana simply makes sense. There is an obvious, logical and expected reason behind why that source material was essential to the attempt at humour.

A Satire is the utilization of a piece of content to make fun of something entirely unrelated to that piece of source content. So to stick with the Weird Al example, he did a song called Amish Paradise where he uses the song Gangsta's Paradise by Coolio to make fun of the Amish. As you can see, there is no obvious reason why Coolio's song would need to be used because it has no connection to the Amish in any way. This use of copyrighted material is not protected under Fair Use.

There are other examples. A case was heard in 1997 where an artist retold the details of the OJ Simpson trial by mimicking the style and using similar titles from the Dr. Seuss story, The Cat In The Hat. It was called The Cat NOT In The Hat, a parody by Dr. Juice. This was rule not Fair Use as it was deemed Satire, not Parody due to there being no targeting of Dr. Seuss in the production. Essentially, there was no "need to use" Dr. Seuss material to make fun of the OJ Simpson trial.

This stuff is a very important distinction that many people don't consider or know. I've seen countless examples of people saying that they're doing Parodies, when in fact, they're just using popular music to make fun of random things, thinking they're protected. Well, they're not protected in any way.

Here is a great source on the topic of Fair Use cases in the US.


And remember, Parody doesn't just mean funny. If you can't easily answer the question "Why did you need to use that copyrighted material?", then you probably didn't make a Parody.
Click to expand...

We recently did a PPAP Parody. Content ID flagged it for copyright. We disputed it. After about a week, we received an email saying:
"After reviewing your dispute, Ultra Music has decided that their copyright claim is still valid."

So, what do we do now? It says that if we appeal, we take the chance of getting a strike or having the video removed. We believe that our video is a parody and not satire.

Any insight is greatly appreciated!
 
Chewie's Video Club said:
We recently did a PPAP Parody. Content ID flagged it for copyright. We disputed it. After about a week, we received an email saying:
"After reviewing your dispute, Ultra Music has decided that their copyright claim is still valid."

So, what do we do now? It says that if we appeal, we take the chance of getting a strike or having the video removed. We believe that our video is a parody and not satire.

Any insight is greatly appreciated!
Click to expand...

what's the video?
 
Chewie's Video Club said:
We recently did a PPAP Parody. Content ID flagged it for copyright.
Click to expand...

If Content ID flagged it, that means you used either their music or video. If that's the case, their claim is genuine.

Parody allows you to create something similar in order to mock the original. It does not allow you to use their work.
 
Shakycow said:
If Content ID flagged it, that means you used either their music or video. If that's the case, their claim is genuine.

Parody allows you to create something similar in order to mock the original. It does not allow you to use their work.
Click to expand...

content ID is automatic. It cant' tell if you made a parody or not.
 
It should be noted that you can use Fair Use for a lot of different types of videos, not just parodies.
I've used Fair Use to defend multiple videos that weren't parodies whatsoever. In fact, they were compilation videos of other YouTubers' clips, but I was able to prove that my videos followed the 4 pillars of Fair Use (transformative/educational, nature of copyrighted work, minimal amount of original video used/minimal amount of my video devoted to content being used, and lastly the effect on the market potential of the copyrighted content). Before I knew about Fair Use, I would have never thought my videos could be defended by copyright laws. A good handful of my videos, as mentioned by plenty of commentators, look like straight up content theft, but they've all been defended by Fair Use successfully.

I know you're just making a distinction between satire and parodies, but it's important to let you all know that even a satirical video can be successfully defended with Fair Use on YouTube. It might not hold up in court, but you can use Fair Use to make DMCA takedown notices go away, or to get rid of Copyright Claims. The cool thing with DMCAs is that if you rebuttal with Fair Use, the only way the claimant can take down your video is if they take you to court for it.

So a general rule for claims/DMCA:
If you think you can defend yourself with Fair Use, do it (even if it's a satire). I have defended multiple videos with Fair Use and YouTube has sided with me each time (for DMCA you submit your counterclaim, it's reviewed by YT and then approved/denied, and then after that the claimant must take you to court/sue you if they want further action...most YouTubers will never do this).
BUT if the copyright claimant is a big corporation, say "Yes sir" and do not rebuttal unless you 100% are sure a COURT would uphold your Fair Use counterclaim.

TL;DR VERSION:
OP is correct...A pure satire can't be defended by Fair Use in court.
However, on YouTube it's actually very easy to defend a satirical video with Fair Use.
 
GeekyNet said:
It should be noted that you can use Fair Use for a lot of different types of videos, not just parodies.
I've used Fair Use to defend multiple videos that weren't parodies whatsoever. In fact, they were compilation videos of other YouTubers' clips, but I was able to prove that my videos followed the 4 pillars of Fair Use (transformative/educational, nature of copyrighted work, minimal amount of original video used/minimal amount of my video devoted to content being used, and lastly the effect on the market potential of the copyrighted content). Before I knew about Fair Use, I would have never thought my videos could be defended by copyright laws. A good handful of my videos, as mentioned by plenty of commentators, look like straight up content theft, but they've all been defended by Fair Use successfully.

I know you're just making a distinction between satire and parodies, but it's important to let you all know that even a satirical video can be successfully defended with Fair Use on YouTube. It might not hold up in court, but you can use Fair Use to make DMCA takedown notices go away, or to get rid of Copyright Claims. The cool thing with DMCAs is that if you rebuttal with Fair Use, the only way the claimant can take down your video is if they physically show up in court for it...which is unlikely.

So a general rule for claims/DMCA:
If you think you can defend yourself with Fair Use, do it (even if it's a satire). I have defended multiple videos with Fair Use and YouTube has sided with me each time (for DMCA you submit your counterclaim, it's reviewed by YT and then approved/denied, and then after that the claimant must take you to court/sue you if they want further action...most YouTubers will never do this).
BUT if the copyright claimant is a big corporation, say "Yes sir" and do not rebuttal unless you 100% are sure a COURT would uphold your Fair Use counterclaim.
Click to expand...

not quite sure what you mean when there has been undisputed evidence that nearly all weird al parodies are in deed satire and both Al and his lawyers have publicly said if you make the songs he's making they aren't fair use.
 
offbeatbryce said:
not quite sure what you mean when there has been undisputed evidence that nearly all weird al parodies are in deed satire and both Al and his lawyers have publicly said if you make the songs he's making they aren't fair use.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about Weird Al being able to use Fair Use.
Satire is more than just songs. You can have a satirical video, satirical essay, satirical poem, satirical novel, satirical song, etc. Weird Al's satirical songs did not follow the 4 main parts of Fair Use, but you can use Fair Use for satirical works depending on the nature of the creative piece.

The official information from Copyright.gov makes no mention of parodies or satires. It's harder to defend satire with Fair Use, but not impossible. Also, it should be noted that in my previous post and this one, I am talking about defending videos with Fair Use on YouTube, not in court. There's a major difference.
 
Last edited:
GeekyNet said:
It should be noted that you can use Fair Use for a lot of different types of videos, not just parodies.
I've used Fair Use to defend multiple videos that weren't parodies whatsoever. In fact, they were compilation videos of other YouTubers' clips, but I was able to prove that my videos followed the 4 pillars of Fair Use (transformative/educational, nature of copyrighted work, minimal amount of original video used/minimal amount of my video devoted to content being used, and lastly the effect on the market potential of the copyrighted content). Before I knew about Fair Use, I would have never thought my videos could be defended by copyright laws. A good handful of my videos, as mentioned by plenty of commentators, look like straight up content theft, but they've all been defended by Fair Use successfully.

I know you're just making a distinction between satire and parodies, but it's important to let you all know that even a satirical video can be successfully defended with Fair Use on YouTube. It might not hold up in court, but you can use Fair Use to make DMCA takedown notices go away, or to get rid of Copyright Claims. The cool thing with DMCAs is that if you rebuttal with Fair Use, the only way the claimant can take down your video is if they take you to court for it.

So a general rule for claims/DMCA:
If you think you can defend yourself with Fair Use, do it (even if it's a satire). I have defended multiple videos with Fair Use and YouTube has sided with me each time (for DMCA you submit your counterclaim, it's reviewed by YT and then approved/denied, and then after that the claimant must take you to court/sue you if they want further action...most YouTubers will never do this).
BUT if the copyright claimant is a big corporation, say "Yes sir" and do not rebuttal unless you 100% are sure a COURT would uphold your Fair Use counterclaim.

TL;DR VERSION:
OP is correct...A pure satire can't be defended by Fair Use in court.
However, on YouTube it's actually very easy to defend a satirical video with Fair Use.
Click to expand...

We recently did a PPAP Parody. Content ID flagged it for copyright. We disputed it. After about a week, we received an email saying:
"After reviewing your dispute, Ultra Music has decided that their copyright claim is still valid."

What do you suggest GeekyNet? We are allowed to keep the video up, but they are taking all revenue. Should we appeal, or just let it go?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top