[bdowling]

To parody without a license you can only take the minimum amount of the source to bring to mind the original. See, e.g., Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994). So, Yankovic probably does need a license from the owner of the composition, because his versions usually borrow the entire source song and don’t change the tune or arrangement. Also, many of Yankovic's songs aren't parodies but take a well-known song and take the lyrics in a completely different direction.

As I understand it, he does also seek permission of the original artist, who isn’t always the owner of the copyright, as a professional courtesy.

[wtallis]

> you can only take the minimum amount of the source to bring to mind the original.

That's not what the ruling you refer to says, and it's not what the statute says. The ruling's text is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html and mentions nothing along the lines of "minimum". The Supreme Court held in that particular case that the portion of the lyrics copied was not excessive, and left it up to the lower court to decide whether repeating the bass riff was excessive.

The statute's general guidelines are that all four of the following factors must be taken into account when determining fair use:

(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.

Factor (3) is the only one that deals with how much of the source material can be used, and it also does not support your assertion. And those rules aren't just for parodies.

[bdowling]

See CPLX’s reply. Fair use is irrelevant if Weird Al is paying for a license, even a compulsory license.

[CPLX]

This is irrelevant.

You can just play the actual song the other person wrote. You’ve heard of the concept of covers right?

I don’t need anyone’s permission to record my own version of any song, and I can change the words or otherwise rearrange it however I want.

I might owe them publishing royalties but that’s an entirely different conversation.

The article implies it’s a grey area but that’s not actually true, it’s not really borderline at all, at least not for creating the songs. Al could have completely ignored the artists opinion he just chose not to.

With that said, the issue of a sync license could be a little more complex, and maybe is what the article is referring to. That could have some impact on the ability to create videos, though that would generally seem to hold up well to a fair use defense.

[circlefavshape]

> I don’t need anyone’s permission to record my own version of any song, and I can change the words or otherwise rearrange it however I want.

You can't change the words - doing so makes your cover a derivative work, and not covered by the usual compulsory licence. You can change the arrangement

[bdowling]

You’re right and I should have been more clear. Yankovic does need a license, but not permission because the compulsory license scheme for “covers” would suffice.

[aidenn0]

The compulsory licensing for covers may not apply if it is not true to the original spirit of the song.