Parody/Commentary/Humor

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Spectrum Press wrote:
>
> Parody is "critical comment" only secondarily. Primarily, parody is
> close derivative work, and usually for commercial gain. I understand
> the arguments of the courts; my point is the arguments are
> unintelligent.
>

[snip]
>
> Why is the line drawn more strictly? Because the court favors amusing
> derivative work, so Carter says above. All else being equal, a
> serious close derivative can be infringing where an amusing close
> derivative of the same material would be fair use. Again, shades of
> George Orwell.
>

[snip]
>
> So the basis for the parody rulings is amusement, not "critical
> comment".

I disagree. Parody is a form of critical comment. True, not all parodies are amusing. But the amusement attribute is one that ought to help with the finding of fair use. Certainly if the parody compels one to laugh at or about the original, then the parody use is clearly not going to be confused with the original, thus helping to minimize any "competitive" aspect of the parody--which will help prevent the fourth factor of fair use from being construed in favor of the plaintiff.

The concepts of parody and critical comment also help bolster the First Amendment implications of fair use, but that is another discussion.

Kenny Crews
Indiana University
<kcrews[_at_]velcome.iupui.edu> Received on Tue Nov 19 1996 - 00:49:40 GMT