Revision as of 21:50, 17 Nov 2009

Current revision

Line 52:

The Supreme Court has extended greater fair use protection to parodies than satires, reasoning that "[p]arody needs to mimic an original to make its point...whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing. ''Campbell'', 510 U.S. at 580-81. This does not leave satire unprotected. In ''Blanch v. Koons'', 467 F.3d 244, 255 (2d Cir. 2006), an artist explained that the use of an existing image advanced his artistic purposes better than taking similar photos himself. The court accepted this statement and found the defendant to have established a justification for his borrowing. ''Id.'' However, in ''Dr. Seuss v. Penguin Books'', the court dismissed the defendants' explanation for using elements of Dr. Seuss's book to criticize the O.J. Simpson trial as "pure shtick" and "completely unconvincing." 109 F.3d at 1402-03. It ruled the defendants' work did not target the plaintiff's work but rather used elements of it "to get attention." ''Id.'' at 1401.

+

Some legal scholars have argued that the distinction between parody and satire is unsupported by literary theory and at odds with the protections of the First Amendment. ''See'' Eugene Volokh, ''Freedom of Speech and Intellectual Property: Some Thoughts After ''Eldred'', ''44 Liquormart'', and ''Bartnicki, 40 Hous. L. Rev. 697, 708-10 (2003) (arguing that the distinction between parody and satire allows the courts to grant protection on the basis of what the content targets, in violation of the First Amendment's content-neutral and subject-matter neutral principles); Bruce P. Keller & Rebecca Tushnet, ''Even More Parodic than the Real Thing: Parody Lawsuits Revisited'', 94 Trademark Rep. 979, 979 (2004) ("[T]he parody/satire distinction simply is not responsive to the considerations that underline copyright law's fair use doctrine, including First Amendment values served by satires as well as parodies."); Zahr Said Stauffer,'' 'Po-mo Karaoke' or Postcolonial Pastiche? What Fair Use Analysis Could Draw From Literary Criticism'', 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 43, 76 (2007) ("[T]he rigidity of having to choose between satire and parody belies the flexible way that creators move between genres in creating works of art: works may be satires, parodies, and other forms of art all at once.").

'''Search tools/Thumbnails'''

Internet Law Treatise - Recent changes [en]

Copyright: Fair Use

 The Supreme Court has extended greater fair use protection to parodies than satires, reasoning that "[p]arody needs to mimic an original to make its point...whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing. ''Campbell'', 510 U.S. at 580-81. This does not leave satire unprotected. In ''Blanch v. Koons'', 467 F.3d 244, 255 (2d Cir. 2006), an artist explained that the use of an existing image advanced his artistic purposes better than taking similar photos himself. The court accepted this statement and found the defendant to have established a justification for his borrowing. ''Id.'' However, in ''Dr. Seuss v. Penguin Books'', the court dismissed the defendants' explanation for using elements of Dr. Seuss's book to criticize the O.J. Simpson trial as "pure shtick" and "completely unconvincing." 109 F.3d at 1402-03. It ruled the defendants' work did not target the plaintiff's work but rather used elements of it "to get attention." ''Id.'' at 1401.
+Some legal scholars have argued that the distinction between parody and satire is unsupported by literary theory and at odds with the protections of the First Amendment. ''See'' Eugene Volokh, ''Freedom of Speech and Intellectual Property: Some Thoughts After ''Eldred'', ''44 Liquormart'', and ''Bartnicki, 40 Hous. L. Rev. 697, 708-10 (2003) (arguing that the distinction between parody and satire allows the courts to grant protection on the basis of what the content targets, in violation of the First Amendment's content-neutral and subject-matter neutral principles); Bruce P. Keller & Rebecca Tushnet, ''Even More Parodic than the Real Thing: Parody Lawsuits Revisited'', 94 Trademark Rep. 979, 979 (2004) ("[T]he parody/satire distinction simply is not responsive to the considerations that underline copyright law's fair use doctrine, including First Amendment values served by satires as well as parodies."); Zahr Said Stauffer,'' 'Po-mo Karaoke' or Postcolonial Pastiche? What Fair Use Analysis Could Draw From Literary Criticism'', 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 43, 76 (2007) ("[T]he rigidity of having to choose between satire and parody belies the flexible way that creators move between genres in creating works of art: works may be satires, parodies, and other forms of art all at once.").
 '''Search tools/Thumbnails'''