Re: UK ban on parodies?

Eugene Volokh writes:
>Someone wrote:
>
>> [I]t is generally accepted that if someone attempted to release
>> that parody of the Michael Jackson song (I forget who did it but
>> it was called "Eat It") under current UK legislation, the composer
>> of the original song would have been able to prevent its release
>> because it was a derogotary treatment even if his publisher had
>> granted a licence.
>
> Is that true? The end of parody (unless authorized by the
>parodee), at least in the UK? Say it ain't so, Father William!

I'm not sure the courts will interpret the legislation this strictly. In the recent case of _Williamson Music Ltd v. Pearson Partnership_ Chancery Division [1987] FSR 97 (pre the legislation) Judge Baker seems to indicate a considerable reluctance to prevent parody citing US cases with approval.

He does however raise a more important issue with regard to song parodies which may infringe both:

• the copyright in the literary work which is the lyrics;
• and the copyright in the musical work which is the tune.

The first seems easier to avoid than the second as changing the words doesn't help with the second and parodies are most effective when they sound as close as possible to the original.

BTW I'm pretty sure Weird Al had permission from Michael Jackson in the original example anyway so moral rights would not have been a problem.

So does anybody know how they managed licensing for the parodies in the two "Sister Act" films?

Tim Arnold-Moore      | CITRI, RMIT         | Uni. of Melbourne Law School
tja[_at_]citri.edu.au      | 723 Swanston St     | ----------------------------
Phone: +61 3 282 2487 | Carlton 3053        |       simul iustus
Fax:   +61 3 282 2490 | Victoria, Australia |        et peccator