Courts are constantly grappling with cases of parody when it comes to determining whether a particular parody falls within the parameters of fair dealing or constitutes copyright infringement. Fair use exceptions strike a balance between promoting artistic creation through copyright protection and not restricting freedom of expression. It`s an exciting time for parody artists in the UK, as this new policy reduces the risk of lawsuits. However, it will be interesting to see how a judge decides whether a parody is comical or not. What will happen to a parody artist if the judge presiding over the case does not have a different sense of humour or sense of humour than the artists? Parody and satire use humor in commentary and criticism, but the main difference and the reason parodies are considered fair use rather than satire is the purpose each serves. Satire is defined as “the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people`s stupidity or vice, especially in the context of contemporary politics and other current issues.” Compare this to the definition of a parody: “a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is accurately imitated for a comic or mocking effect.” Whether a new or derivative work is categorized as satire or parody can be a nuanced decision. Unfortunately, it is not always clear what constitutes fair use. It is best to consult a lawyer with expertise in intellectual property. When an author claims fair dealing, they are claiming an exception to copyright protections – this is a defense against claims of copyright infringement. The fair use doctrine allows authors to use a copyrighted work to present comments or criticism to the public through parodies or satires. There are four factors that courts use to determine whether the use of a copyrighted work is fair use. By U.S. The court, like the trial court, held that 2 Live Crew did not use more lyrics than was required by Oh, Pretty Woman, and therefore held that the third factor favored 2 Live Crew`s fair dealing defense, but since the court had already referred the case to the fourth factor, It also decided to raise the issue of whether the quantity of copies was excessive or not.
Since this permitted “derivative” use of copyrighted material only applies to parody and not to other uses such as karaoke, choreography or remixing, it is important that aspiring parodists have a very clear understanding of the purpose of their use of an original work and the purpose of the criticism they wish to make, while minimizing the amount of works copied directly from an original. If the parody is to be used commercially, it is strongly recommended that you obtain permission from the copyright holder to use the underlying work. A parody does not infringe copyright if the parodist has obtained permission from the copyright holder. Note that the author or artist is not always the rights holder – it can be a publisher or a music label. Obtaining permission from these entities can be an expensive and time-consuming process, which can discourage petty parodists. However, with your permission, you are free to parody the Work under the agreed license without risk of infringement.