If you`ve ever watched TV, listened to the radio, or watched a movie, you`ve probably experienced a travesty, whether you`re aware of it or not. A parody is a “work of imitation created to imitate or comment on a work, theme, author, style or other original purpose by satirical or ironic imitation.” By definition, a parody builds on an original work using either the same scenes, the same plot, the same actors, or the same music. [8] After flirting with YouTube, the author suggests that the viral videos, which could arguably be classified as so dull as to be outside the concept of parody, could contain Erwin Beekveld`s musical remix They`re take the Hobbits to Isengard, based on a single line from the second Lord of the Rings movie, the Day Job Orchestra`s absurd “Redubs” of Star Trek footage: the Next Generation, or the many videos in which the subtitles of a well-known scene from the movie The Downfall are replaced, so that a longer explosion of Adolf Hitler is variously diverted to the iPad, the Indian call center or the singer Rick Astley. Deckmyn leads to the conclusion that an author`s work can be co-opted for the purpose of parodying completely foreign works. However, there are some limitations to this principle. First, that the reproduction must not prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. Second, the new exceptions only apply if the relevant use of the copyrighted work is “fair dealing” (i.e., for the exception to be available, the use must be both parodic and equitable). This means that the UK`s established case law on fair trade will help decide whether a particular use is allowed or not. Case law is particularly useful when dealing with the analogous exception of honest commercial transactions for the purposes of criticism or control. A similar concept – “fair use” – exists in the United States, but it is a general defence. British “fair dealing” is more limited than the US doctrine of fair dealing. The terms “fair use” and “fair dealing” are not interchangeable – an exception that applies in the United States may be considered a violation in the United Kingdom. Fair dealing in UK law is a doctrine that provides an exception to UK copyright law in cases where copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or examination, or to report on current events.

Fair dealing, which is narrower than the fair use doctrine in the United States, has its origins in sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988 and requires the infringer to prove not only that his copy falls into one of the three categories of fair trade, but also that it is “fair” and, in some cases, that it contains sufficient acknowledgement for the original author. Factors that determine the “fairness” of reproduction may include the amount of work recorded, if it has already been published, the motives of the infringer, and the consequences of the infringement on the original author`s returns on the copyrighted work. Brownmark Films LLC, the copyright owner of the original video, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against South Park Digital Studios and others, which SPDS sought to defend by asserting a fair dealing defense for parody purposes. The US approach to “fair use” is broader than the UK equivalent of fair dealing. In the United States, “fair dealing” criteria are mandatory, but these criteria can be applied to almost any category of use. Rather, the United Kingdom`s approach is to prescribe certain categories of exempt use, and then to consider whether or not use within those categories constitutes fair dealing. The same 2014 amendment also expanded the scope of the fair trade defence to “quote” duly acknowledged published works for “criticism or revision” to “criticism, examination or otherwise”. [28] [29] In the past, British law has allowed exceptions to offences in several categories (e.g. examination and criticism[2] or private study). However, he was no exception to parody – the key issue for courts when faced with a case of parody has always been to “reproduce it or reproduce a substantial part of the original work and thus violate it”.

The parody or quality of the derivative work was considered irrelevant to this assessment. When assessing whether an unlicensed parody has infringed the author`s copyright, UK courts will consider the meaning (materiality) of the copied parts of the work in relation to the original piece as a whole. For example, a fashion magazine parody that copies the cover pixel by pixel and simply adds a mustache to the model could take too much control over the original work and therefore be hurtful. A parody that is reminiscent of a fashion magazine cover without using the same text, font, or photo as the original magazine is unlikely to be perceived as hurtful. Under no circumstances is it acceptable to copy something almost completely and use parody as an excuse – the spirit of parody is the creation of a new work and social commentary. In the UK, there are a number of copyright exceptions for “fair dealing”, meaning that certain uses of an artistic work do not require the permission of the copyright owner as long as the use is considered “fair”. The regulations do not give a definition of “parody, caricature and pastiche”. This means that words must be interpreted as “clear English”, meaning what they say. For the purposes of this note, we will not distinguish between the three terms, but we will only pay attention to the common element they share – which is in any case an element of iteration and transformation (a work in the case of a parody, a figure in the case of a caricature and a style in the case of pastiche), which for its effect is based on the audience`s familiarity with the original source material.

[3] If a claim of copyright infringement is brought and the copyright owner seeks an injunction to restrict publication, courts will generally not grant it if the defendant claims fair treatment. [30] The recent CJEU preliminary ruling (September 2014) in the Deckmyn case[5] offers some help in quantifying the limits of “caricature, parody and pastiche” in Europe and therefore in the United Kingdom. The judgment, which had been requested by the Belgian court, referred to a calendar issued by a Belgian politician whose cover featured an image based on the cover of a well-known Belgian comic strip from 1961. The original work featured one of the main characters from the comic strip in a white tunic hovering over a market town, throwing coins at residents, who excitedly pull them out of the air as they rain. The new work replaced the figure with a representation of the mayor of Ghent and replaced the recipients of the pieces with brown-skinned people, some of whom wear the veil. Fair dealing is an exception to UK copyright law, which allows the use of copyrighted works without a licence in certain circumstances.