[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.