[Shivetya]

Many of the parodies I see on the net keep the original song or lyrics. Weird Al keeps most of the original musical sound but not the lyrics.

So how do you parody a music video without changing the song? Does fair use of the music video via parody give you right to use the music behind it intact? (color me confused)

[1123581321]

You can make money from a parody and make any parody you want. However, in the case of a music video, the video and the song are separate entities, so to avoid the license question the parody would have to change the music as well. I'm not sure where the line is, but for example, the "Opan Chomsky Style" line in the MIT video would certainly not be enough to make the song a parody. "Mitt Romney Style" would certainly be considered a fair use parody and since the video was also parody, the need to license was avoided.

It would be interesting to know at which point a video soundtrack becomes separately copyrighted video. Does the process and order of creation matter or is a song a separate work by definition? Is it possible to merge video and music rights into one right?

[pflats]

>"Mitt Romney Style" would certainly be considered a fair use parody and since the video was also parody, the need to license was avoided.

This is far from a certainty. In fact, the court could very well rule against College Humor et. al. if Psy and his folks chose to press the issue.

The major issue here is the legal difference between parody vs. satire. In parody, you're using Psy's own work to criticize Psy. In satire, you're using Psy's work to mock someone unrelated (i.e. Gov. Romney).

Excerpting from page 2 of http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectu..., emphasis mine.

"[i]f the new work “has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention” [...] the work is less tansformative, and other fair use factors [...], loom larger. [...] [A] parody targets and mimics the original work to make its point, [while] a satire uses the work to criticize something else, and therefore requires justification for the very act of borrowing."

But like everything in the legal system, it's in shades of grey.

"A parody that more loosely targets an original [...] may still be sufficiently aimed at an original work to come within our analysis of parody. If a parody [...] runs the risk of serving as a substitute for the original or licensed derivatives [...] it is more incumbent on one claiming fair use to establish the extent of transformation."

I think there's a strong argument that an English-languge parody on a stremaing video site that gets money for its adroll could be a replacement for the Korean-language (or theoretical officially-licensed English-language) song on a streaming video site that gets money for its adroll.

I, of course, am not a lawer. If I was in the business of using copyrighted works in what is legally defined as satire, I'd be playing it very carefully. Psy has (seemingly) no interest in suing these people, and is probably a safe bet. I'd be a lot more careful about using a Ted Nugent song to support single-payer healthcare.

In the end, the American Bar document (http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectu...) is a really interesting read if you do care about what could qualify as fair use and what might not.

edit: in fact, what the heck, I'll submit it as a story. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4905613)

[1123581321]

You're completely right; I remember now a few other cases in which the rights holder prevailed because they were not the target of the parody.