Found an issue on this page? Let us know and we will look into it as soon as possible.
Legal Questions
Anonymous3 views3 answers
The answer to your question is not as definitive as it might at first appear. Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC § 107.
Generally speaking, a paradoy is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. This element of critiscism and/or comment is very important in this regard, as it goes to a person's first amendment right of free speech and provides the justification for overriding, if you will, the rights of the copyright owner. In the copyright context, a paradoy is a "fair use" defense against an infringement claim. See, Campell v. Acuff Rose Music, Inc. (involving 2 Live Crew's use of the song "Pretty Woman"), for example, or the more recent Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, decided by the 11th Circuit in 2001, which upheld the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of "Gone with the Wind" called "The Wind Done Gone," which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves, who were glad to be rid of her.
In contrast, simply "reworking" a song, as your describe it, implies something more along the lines of what is referred to as a "derivative work." Creating a derivative work from an existing copyright requires permission from the owner of the copyright. A derivative work can be defined as an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work.
The analysis gets a bit complicated, because, as indicated earlier, every parody is, by its nature, also a derivative work. The Supreme Court has set forth several factors for determining when a derivative works is entitled to the fair use defense of "parody," the predominate factor of which is the work's transformative nature, i.e., in the words of the Supreme Court in Acuff Rose:
"the answer to the question of justification turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society."
As already stated, transformative uses include criticism of the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses.
So, the question for you to determine is where in this spectrum from pure derivative to parody does your work lie?
The answer to your question is not as definitive as it might at first appear. Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC § 107.
Generally speaking, a paradoy is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. This element of critiscism and/or comment is very important in this regard, as it goes to a person's first amendment right of free speech and provides the justification for overriding, if you will, the rights of the copyright owner. In the copyright context, a paradoy is a "fair use" defense against an infringement claim. See, Campell v. Acuff Rose Music, Inc. (involving 2 Live Crew's use of the song "Pretty Woman"), for example, or the more recent Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, decided by the 11th Circuit in 2001, which upheld the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of "Gone with the Wind" called "The Wind Done Gone," which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves, who were glad to be rid of her.
In contrast, simply "reworking" a song, as your describe it, implies something more along the lines of what is referred to as a "derivative work." Creating a derivative work from an existing copyright requires permission from the owner of the copyright. A derivative work can be defined as an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work.
The analysis gets a bit complicated, because, as indicated earlier, every parody is, by its nature, also a derivative work. The Supreme Court has set forth several factors for determining when a derivative works is entitled to the fair use defense of "parody," the predominate factor of which is the work's transformative nature, i.e., in the words of the Supreme Court in Acuff Rose:
"the answer to the question of justification turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society."
As already stated, transformative uses include criticism of the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses.
So, the question for you to determine is where in this spectrum from pure derivative to parody does your work lie?
As Barry and Oscar note, your question raises a number of issues that cannot be quickly answered.
Absent application of the parody exception very ably described by Barry, you cannot "rework" the words of a song and then perform the modified song in public without a license from the owner of the copyrights in (1) the musical composition of the song and (2) the sound recording of the particular version of the song that you're modifying.
It's fairly routine for businesses to license the rights to the musical composition of a song (i.e., the words and music -- the copyright to which is most often owned by a music publishing company) and then hire musicians to record the song with modified lyrics in order to create a commercial advertisement that promotes the sale of the company's widgets (cars, diapers, what have you). To do so, the business must contact the music publishing company that owns the copyright in the song's musical composition and negotiate a particular-use license. While routine, that licensing process is quite involved and requires an attorney negotiator.
In short, while possible, "reworking" an existing song for commercial purposes is a time consuming and expensive project. It's interesting to note that, although he likely does not have to, even Weird Al Yankovich gets permission before he publishes his song parodies.
Just to add to Barry's thorough and correct repsonse, it is difficult for any lawyer to answer a general question of this nature in this forum. When embarking on a business venture, particularly one whose business model may rely on using in some fashion someone else's intellectual property, it is always best to budget for a few hours of legal advice from a qualified practitioner. The money spent in the beginning saves much more money down the road in avoidance of letters and litigation.
