Parodies (was: Re: Tacky Awards ( February 1998))

[Garrett Wollman <wollman>]

<<On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:47:26 -0500, "A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@world.std.com> said:

> On 17 Feb 99,  Bob Nelson wrote:
>> I thought that a song parody that's available for sale had to be
>> approved by the original copyright holders (at least it may have
>> required this before
>> the Supreme Court decision on parodies)...while something merely
>> played on the radio (but not for sale) didn't have to be.
 
> There are some special rules regarding copyrighted music, involving 
> compulsory licensing, but it's complicated and I'd have to look it up to 
> be familiar with the details.

I think the idea that Bob was referring to arises out of text in the
Fair Use clause (17 USC 107, for those following along at home) which
suggests that those interpreting it take into consideration whether
the use is ``of a commercial nature''.  I could imagine, although I
don't have the legal references you do, that some court might have
interpreted this clause as excluding /any/ sale of a derived work
created subject to Fair Use.  The report of the House committee
accompanying the enacting legislation clearly shows Congress's intent
was to protect at least limited use in a parody.  (See LII.)

I needed this information myself in order to determine what the legal
status of the Archives' collection of legal IDs is.  Regardless of
what the management of WCCC in Hartford may happen to think, the
guidelines given in the statute look to put us entirely in the clear.

- -GAWollman

- --
Garrett A. Wollman   | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wollman@lcs.mit.edu  | O Siem / The fires of freedom 
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA|                     - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick

------------------------------