Re: More on parody

On 4/22/99, Vance R. Koven <vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> wrote:
>
> At the risk of stretching our parody thread to the breaking point,
> I wonder if anyone else has pondered an issue that came to mind
> as I was reviewing the state of parody/satire for a client.
>
> If the "target parody" category is really valid and exclusive for
> all the related IP contexts, that is copyright, trademark and
> right-o-publicity, where does this leave female impersonators? Where
> the objective of a presentation is to render an imitation as faithfully
> as possible, wouldn't this automatically trigger the wrath of the Dr.
> Seuss court?

There are many issues implicated, but to enumerate them requires more facts, and I can't give this an exhaustive treatment at this time. Nevertheless, let's take the example of someone who impersonates any of the usual diva-of-choice suspects (Judy Garland, Diana Ross, Liza Minelli, Marilyn Monroe, et al.) Whether what they're doing is actionable depends on what they're doing, and under body of law one considers.

In the area of copyright, the first question might be: What kind of presentation is it? Is it a public performance? Parody or satire of the performer or not, the usual rules would be applied to musical works being sung (presumably in their entirety with most/all of the lyrics and music): a nightclub where admission is charged would have to obtain a license (including an ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC license). If the performance is not broadcast or fixed, such issues as the making of a derivative work do not come up; conversely, broadcasting or fixation complicates matters.

If you get more time to ponder it, please share your thoughts. For inspiration, take a look at a _faaabulous_ documentary entitled "Battle for the Tiara."

M.

S. Martin Keleti
<keleti[_at_]manifesto.com> Received on Tue Apr 27 1999 - 00:40:29 GMT