Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Maybe it falls under criticism?
****
EDIT: Weird Al doesn't need permission due to "fair use", though he does get the go-ahead from the artists to maintain good relations with them. *He didn't do a Prince tune for this reason. |
Wierd Al clearly fits the definition of a pardody (See above)
Criticism might even be a stretch because he's not really criticizing the Dixie Chicks persay (though maybe that's why they put in a shot of Natalie Maines) as he's using the melody to put forth his own ideas.
I somehow doubt that the Dixie Chicks would have given this guy permission.
Plus the fact that he's selling his rendition at a buck a copy on line (though maybe he's donating the proceeds.)
The Dixie Chicks would be damned if they do and damned if they don't (go after him).
He'd probably love the publicity.