But does the remand square with the analysis? If a work is really
a parody, it is a transformed work that cannot substitute for the
original. Even if it did substitute, or eviscerate the market, for
the original, the Court said it would be fair use. Why should the
fourth factor matter? Example: No one is going to purchase Weird
Al Yankovic as a substitute for Michael Jackson. But if no one wants
to buy a Michael Jackson record after hearing Al sing, that's still
fair use. What is left in between for the remand?
Seth Greenstein
<sethg[_at_]access1.digex.net>
Received on Sat Mar 12 1994 - 01:22:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT