Communication Rights and Law Blog #3: Copyright, Defamation, Parody, and Satire

I found our class lecture on copyright, defamation, parody, and satire to be very thought provoking. I found it difficult to answer the question, “when does a joke go too far?” Also, It was intriguing to learn more about the background on copyright in relation to parody and satire, as the information states that original works of authorship are “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than a transitory duration of expression” (Permber and Calvert 572). Thus, once your copyrighted work is released, anyone has the ability to reproduce the work in a less than flattering or crediting way. What’s interesting, though, is that the courts will look at the amount of pages, minutes, lyrics, etc., that someone/a group is using for a parody. After considering some of the cases and parodies we discussed in class, I think that this type of consideration is important.
First, I thought of the James Blunt parody on his song, “You’re Beautiful,” which is called “You’re Pitiful.” The parody does, in a way, ruin the song for me, as all I can hear is “You’re Pitiful” when I hear the original (although I didn’t like the original a lot, so it’s no big loss). The lyrics of “You’re Pitiful” are also a very harsh blow to who he is as an artist. Thus, the value of the work, for me, has been lessened.
When considering “The Daily Show” case, I started thinking about many Saturday Night Live skits, also. We’ve talked about how the grassroots network, and the Internet/rapid technological advances, are what some believed resulted in Obama’s win; I would also argue that many of the SNL and other TV skits, which mocked, defamed, and discredited Palin and McCain, may have lowered their credibility so much that it, like the grassroots network, contributed to Obama’s win. Since it is all done in good humor, though, this type of work tends to fall under parody, which is a “critically and usually humorous effort to lampoon a creation,” rather than defamation (Tedford and Herbeck 589). This is less related to copyright laws, and more related to parody and defamation, but it got me thinking about the use of people’s name, face, and works.
In the end, what’s most important, in my opinion, to consider when observing or hearing a parody piece on copyrighted works, is the “transformative” dimension it may have. This dimension is regarding the “[…] way a work takes an original and transforms it into something different.” Moreover, it’s especially “sticky” when thinking about the effect of use upon “[…] the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” (Bammert’s handout – April 22nd, 2009).