Greetings Jvillari:
The web site at http://www.publaw.com/parody.html states "Since
copyright law prohibits the substantial use of a copyrighted work
without permission of the copyright owner, and because such permission
is highly unlikely when the use is to create a parody, it may be
necessary for the parodist to rely on the fair-use defense to
forestall any liability for copyright infringement. However, the
fair-use defense if successful will only be successful when the newly
created work that purports itself to be parody is a valid parody."
Please read the entire article for a more comprehensive understanding.
The Fair Use section of the copyright law at the US Copyright office
states:
"§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors."
This is located at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Note the part "...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
The most recent "parody claim" I recall in the courts was the instance
of Alice Randall and her book "The Wind Done Gone" which her lawyers
claimed as a parody. See the article at
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/columns/fl.hilden.gwtw.05.04/
Also, please visit:
THE SEINFELD AND THE WIND DONE GONE CASES: Studies in Fair Use
IVAN HOFFMAN, B.A., J.D.
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/seinfeld.html
US Court of Appeals finds fair use of "Gone With The Wind"'s
copyrightable elements in parody "The Wind Done Gone" and vacates
lower court's restraining order
http://www.wptn.com/crt_007_vol4is5.htm
THE INJUNCTION DONE GONE: FEDERAL APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS ""GONE WITH
THE WIND"" PARODY FAIR USE COPYRIGHT DEFENSE BY DAVID R. ELLIS,
ATTORNEY AT LAW, LARGO, FLORIDA
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:XNs0k3miAl8J:www.easl.net/Documents/Elliswinddonegone.pdf+%22the+wind+done+gone%22+court+finding&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
parody and fair use disclaimer on a web site
http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/oth1/parody.htm
10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Parody: Fair Use Or Copyright Infringement by Lloyd L. Rich
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00102/005704/title/subject/topic/intellectual%20property%20law_copyright/filename/intellectualpropertylaw_1_233
******
The bottom line is that when you create a true parody (as seen as such
by the courts), then you are protected. Anyone, of course, may take
issue with your parody but, if suing on this basis was widespread and
effective, then popular magazines like Mad Magazine or sites such as
The Onion would have never existed for long. Mad Magazine continues
to parody anything and everything. There are even Amazon.com and CNN
parody sites. There is even a book titled "Bored of the Rings" which
is a Tolkien parody. Some well-known parody sites are:
The Onion
http://www.theonion.com
Mad Magazine
http://www.madmag.com
Landover Baptist
http://www.landoverbaptist.org
George Bush
http://www.gwbush.com
Also, see the article "Parody Sites Prevail in Court - No one likes to
be made fun of online, but when it comes to the law, you probably have
little recourse." by Matt Gallaway, Feb 13, 2001, and located at
http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,9452,00.html. He wrote
there "...the American legal system has a long tradition of protecting
parody as free speech under the First Amendment. Cybersquatting laws
aside, our legal system veers toward the side of humor."
Use a similar logo or a send-up of the logo you wish to parody. I
would not recommend using the exact logo or graphic of the
business/company. When you parody, parody *everything*. :)
Should you require clarification of any of the links or information I
have provided, please request it and I will be happy to respond.
SEARCH STRATEGY:
US copyright office fair use
"the wind done gone" court finds
"fair use" copyright parody
parody sites
The Onion
Mad Magazine
Landover Baptist
gwbush.com |
Clarification of Answer by
journalist-ga
on
30 Jun 2003 11:56 PDT
ADDENDUM: My colleague, Expertlaw-ga, just sent me the link to a logo
parody case he thought you might find interesting:
Cartoonist Kieron Dwyer Sued By Starbucks
http://www.cbldf.org/pr/001130-starbucks.shtml
In the article, it is noted "Fortunately, Dwyer did have access to an
attorney to combat Starbucks' hardball tactics. Before publishing LCD
#0, Dwyer had run the cover past Andy Gold, a San Francisco
intellectual property lawyer who does pro bono work with California
Lawyers for the Arts. LCA is a non-profit organization that provides
legal advice to graphic artists, and they referred Dwyer to Gold. In
Gold's opinion, Dwyer's parody of the mermaid logo was a social satire
every bit as legitimate as an editorial cartoon."
"At the hearing to consider Starbucks' motion for a preliminary
injunction, Gold asserted that Dwyer's image did not infringe on the
company's copyright, because it meets the standards of parody. Unlike
libel or slander, parody is protected speech, and presiding judge
Maxine Chesney seemed to agree that Dwyer's image constituted a
legitimate parody. In response to questioning by Judge Chesney,
Starbucks' attorney was forced to admit that Dwyer would be within his
First Amendment rights to place the parody logo on a billboard.
Finding that Starbucks was unlikely to prevail on the copyright
portion of its lawsuit, Judge Chesney later ruled that Dwyer was free
to display the parody on his website."
Please see the entire article and my thanks to Expertlaw-ga for
providing the URL.
|
,
2 Comments
)