Parody Law?

[Mr. Lucky Shot]

Don't use the theme song. That is someone's hard work.

And when you say parody? What do you have in mind exactly? How are you defining parody? Using the original footage isn't a parody, for example.

Like if i make a parody of a tv show, but the only thing is use of the tv show is the concept of it.

 

[Tarmack]

Also, look up the recent Beastie Boys copyright case. I guess people can disallow fair use of their work if they want, this is new news to me.

The Beastie Boys lawsuit is based on the premise that it wasn't fair use, not that fair use shouldn't apply to them. The offending company used their song for an advertisement which is far an away different from creating parody despite their lyrical adjustments to make it cute. GoldieBlox also just lost that case and now have to pay for it. And in true Beastie Boys fashion, it'll all be sent to charity to help girls. Good triumphs again.

There are cases where licensing is the appropriate choice, but GoldieBlox knew that song would never be licensed because the Beastie Boys don't license their stuff per the last wishes of Adam. If it hadn't been an advertisement, they'd probably have been fine.

 

[Styxie]

Parodies are a sensitive subject. Take a look at this case I found when I was doing my Business Law class a few weeks ago:
http://www.songrights.com/infringe.htm

This is also what my law book said:


"A copyright holder’s right in a work is not absolute. The law permits certain
limited unauthorized use of copyrighted materials under the fair use doctrine.
The following uses are protected under this doctrine: (1) quotation of the copyrighted
work for review or criticism or in a scholarly or technical work, (2) use
in a parody or satire, (3) brief quotation in a news report, (4) reproduction by a
teacher or student of a small part of the work to illustrate a lesson, (5) incidental
reproduction of a work in a newsreel or broadcast of an event being reported, and
(6) reproduction of a work in a legislative or judicial proceeding. The copyright
holder cannot recover for copyright infringement where fair use is found." (Cheeseman, 2013).

Also, look up the recent Beastie Boys copyright case. I guess people can disallow fair use of their work if they want, this is new news to me.

And from what I know, you can claim fair use on anything but only a judge can rule if it is actual fair use or not.

 

[Tarmack]

And from what I know, you can claim fair use on anything but only a judge can rule if it is actual fair use or not.

Yep. It's because the situation is different every time. One vlogger may use a song but faded to only 10% of normal volume in the background while walking around a busy downtown street talking to their camera. A gamer might use the same song but nice and loud over a montage of game footage. Even further than that, a software reviewer might use a 5 second portion or sample from that same song in their intro/outro. One or two of them might have monetized it while the others did not.

Every case above uses the same copyrighted content, but the courts will see each one differently because fair use doctrine takes into account the amount of content used, the form in which it's used, whether it is used for commercial purposes and so on.

The main reason why people use the "commentary makes it fair use" argument is because by and large it takes the focus away from the copyrighted material. The purpose of the video is the commentary and the copyrighted content becomes a secondary element in the content. The video is marketed by the YouTuber name, rather than the song that just happens to be playing quietly in the background while they're talking, etc. At least, that's how the law sees it. ContentID on the other hand operates completely differently.

 

[Munchito696]

Okay, would it be enough just to change the lyrics?[DOUBLEPOST=1395244860,1395244801][/DOUBLEPOST]
Can you cut that down to Non-lawyer speak? xD

uhhh, not really, lol. That's just regular business law material. I'm no lawyer or expert, so this is open to your own interpretation as it is to me. Basically what I get from this is parodies are kind of a gray area and the person who owns the original copyright can cause a huge fuss. Whether they win or not is kind of up in the air.