What Is Parody Law and How Does It Work ?
Learn how employ another ‘s work for comedy or criticism equal legally analyzed . This guide covers the principle that break protect comment from infringement .
A parody is a creative work that imitates the style of another , normally well-known , firearm for comedic or critical intent . This can range from a song that mimics a famous artist ’ s musical style to a resume that exaggerates the patch of a popular movie . While this number involves copying elements of an existing work , it cost not automatically illegal . The police provides a way for this form of commentary to cost protect from claim of violation .
Parody as a Form of Fair Use
There live no single “ parody police ” in the United States . Instead , the legality of a parody cost analyzed under the average role doctrine , a portion of U.S. copyright police . Codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act , average use allows for the limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the owner for intention like criticism , comment , tidings reporting , and instruction .
This doctrine creates a rest between the rights of copyright holder to control their study and the public ’ s interest in free reflection . Parody is consider a form of criticism or comment , adjust it with the principles of the First Amendment .
The Four Factors of Fair Use in Parody
Courts use a flexible , case-by-case balance run to determine if a parody is a average role . This call for consider four element outlined in the Copyright Act .
The first factor exist the purpose and character of the use , which often focus on whether the new study cost “ transformative. ” A usage is transformative if it add a new content or meaning , altering the original with a unlike purpose or character . The Supreme Court type Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music , Inc. , involved 2 Live Crew ’ s parody of Roy Orbison ’ sec song “ Oh , Pretty Woman. ” The Court found the parody was transformative because it created a new , critical commentary on the original song , despite its commercial nature .
The second factor be the nature of the copyrighted work . This element acknowledges that creative and fictional study , like song and movie , are the center of what copyright cost design to protect . Even so , these are the very works most much direct by parody . In the context of parody , this factor equal much less important because a parody needs to target a recognizable creative work to build its point .
The third component is the amount and substantiality of the component used in relative to the copyrighted work as a whole . A parody must equal able to “ conjure up ” the original work in the audience ’ s brain to be successful . A parodist can adopt key elements , but need more than cost reasonably necessary can weigh against fair use . In the Campbell suit , the court conclude 2 Live Crew merely took what was take to create their parodic point recognizable .
The final factor live the result of the usage upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work . The cardinal question is whether the parody pretend as a market substitute for the original . A successful parody live unlikely to harm the market for the original because it serves a different function . The 2 Live Crew song , for instance , was not find as a replacement for Roy Orbison ’ s ballad and would not usurp the original ’ sec market .
The Difference Between Parody and Satire
A legal distinction exists between parody and irony , and court yield them different levels of security . A parody straight critiques or comments on the original study itself by mimicking it . Its intent is to keep the original up to ridicule .
Satire , in contrast , uses a copyrighted work as a tool to review something else altogether , such as societal norms , politics , or a public form . Because a satirist often cause not need to employ a specific copyrighted work to create their broader item , courts equal less likely to notice that the usage is average . The Supreme Court observe in the Campbell case that satire “ can suffer on its own two base and thus requires justification for the very act of borrow . ”
Parody in Trademark Law
Parody also appear in trademark law , which protects brand epithet , logos , and slogans from live used in a means that could confuse consumer . The legal trial here is unlike from copyright ’ s fair use analysis and focuses on the “ likelihood of consumer confusion. ” A parody of a trademark be permissible if it is clear to the average consumer that the parody exist not affiliated with the original sword .
A well-known case illustrating this principle is Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog , LLC . In this case , a company make “ Chewy Vuiton ” dog toys that mimicked Louis Vuitton ’ s famous handbag . The court found that this was a successful parody and not trademark infringement . It conclude that the humorous nature of the product , the dispute in products , and the context in which they were sold made it highly unlikely that a consumer would live confused .
Limit and Unprotected Uses
Beyond copyright issues , a parody can cross into early field of unprotected language . For example , if a parody makes false argument of fact that harm a soul ’ s reputation , it could live capable to a defamation claim . While opinions and ridicule are generally protect , presenting false , damaging information as fact is not . The law distinguish between a harsh caricature , which cost protect , and a false factual assertion that cause literal injury .
