Is this a case of copyright infringement, or a parody - Song by US Marine
 

Came across this video on another site.


Seems there is this ex marine who has taken the Dixie Chicks song, "Not Ready to Make Nice" and turned it into a pro-US War in Iraq song - “Not Ready to End the Fight,”

Here's the original....


Personally, I don't like country music at even the best of times, never the less, the question is whether or not he's violating copyright laws in the US.


It would seem that back in 89 2 Live Crew parodied Roy Orbison's "Oh Pretty Woman" and got away with it after a trip to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that since 2-Live Crew's version was a "parody" that they weren't infringing on copyright.

See the deal here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh,_Pretty_Woman

Now, I looked up "Parody" on line and came up with this:

a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet's soliloquy.
2. the genre of literary composition represented by such imitations.
3. a burlesque imitation of a musical composition.
4. any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.
5. the use in the 16th century of borrowed material in a musical setting of the Mass (parody Mass).
6. a poor or feeble imitation or semblance; travesty: His acting is a parody of his past greatness.
–verb (used with object) 7. to imitate (a composition, author, etc.) for purposes of ridicule or satire.
8. to imitate poorly or feebly; travesty.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parody

The question to the peanut gallery would be - Is this guy guilty of copyright infringement and walking right into a lawsuit?

Especially given that he's now selling his version on line for a buck a pop

http://www.davidthibodeauxmusic.com/music/

if weird al can do it.....


I think the even he gets the original artist or label permission though doesn't he?


*Shrug*

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.

One doesn't necessarily leap from 'parody' to 'copyright infringement' - there are other fair use exemptions. Frankly, (aside from being a somewhat poor piece from a musical standpoint) what he's doing isn't parodying so much as it is intellectual laziness. Dude deserves to get sued.

Note: I am not passing judgement on his politics. Only on his violation of another artist's intellectual property rights and his musical abilities.

I would say that THIS is a parody of the song in question:


And I WILL pass judgement on his video. He shows the twin towers burning and therefore is making the assertion that somehow Iraq was responsible for 911 (as something like 50% of Americans truly believe.)

My guess is that he figures that if the Dixie Chicks come after him, he only stands to bennefit by the free publicity. (You can't buy that kind of publicity.) At worst, he forks over all the cash generated by the sales of the song to the Dixie Chicks publishing company.

If hes taking money, even as donations, my guess is that you could make a very good case of copyright infringement.

That being said the Dixie Chicks would be complete morons to do anything about it, or more likely their lawyers would have to be complete morons to advise them to.

That being said I hate all forms of country music, and its an awful song.

Took the words right off of my fingers.

God that's a horrible song, and a horrible message to boot.

But no, this isn't copyright infringement.

Here's a 17-page legal PDF titled The Satire/Parody Distinction in Copyright and Trademark Law. Here's a key paragraph: