Filks and parody

[javasaurus]

My understanding of "parody" as applied to copyright is not the commonly held understanding. Not every comedic or critical use of a work is parody for purposes of copyright! Parody can constitute fair use, but for it to be fair use, it needs to make fun of (or otherwise comment on) the work being modified. So creating alternate lyrics to Nirvana's "Smells like teen spirit" that make fun of the president would generally not be fair use, even if it is, more generally, parody. To parody a song you have to be making a statement about that song itself, or it's not fair use.

Am I right? If you disagree, please provide links to support your argument. In the meantime, Family Guy is getting sued for modifying "When you wish upon a star."

Comments

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Basically, as I understand it, the reason that parody is allowed is the following: It would be a violation of the first amendment to prevent criticism of writing or artwork. Parodying a work of art to make fun of that same piece of art falls into the category of critiquing it.

Acting/Opera companies (like the G&S Players) probably make minor modification with the approval of the licencing company, or perform pieces that have fallen into the public domain (G&S worked together in the late 1800s), or they hope not to be called on it.

Didn't know that about covers (which are certainly not parody). I know there was a major issue a few years ago about performers that make digital samples from several performers, and create "songs" that are aural mosaics. Copyright gets dicey at times.