Random Thoughts

[D-Dey65]

I was wondering what kind of elaborate thing I was going to do for my 4,000th post on this forum. Now I've got an idea.

This thing had better not blank out on me.

[DTComposer]

Seeking legal advice from Google AI, Esq.

Please note that the second quote is directly from Weird Al's website.

But, here's an actual, human IP lawyer talking about it:

Although Weird Al's re-recordings are near melodic copies of the original recordings, they do not violate the copyright owner's rights. Since "Weird Al's" songs meet the required aspects to define a parody, he is not required by law to get permission. He also does not need to pay the creator of the original song.

Often times, a court will apply the "likelihood of confusion" test to a parody case. Courts have noted that a successful parody will rarely be considered infringement because the ultimate object of a parody is to entertain and not confuse the listener or buyer. There is no perceived "threat of confusion" and it is unlikely that the original artist's profits will be negatively impacted by Weird Al's versions. Because of this, original recording artists are unlikely to have a cause of action against Mr. Yankovic.

[kphoger]

I went on incognito mode and found Mickey flipping the bird, urinating on things, having sex with other Disney characters, getting stoned, etc.

I was on incognito mode too.  What did you put in the search field, exactly?  For example, was it {mickey mouse sex} or just {mickey mouse}?  You seemed to imply that children might just happen to stumble upon Mickey Mouse doing inappropriate things when searching for his name.  If you did a search for something explicitly inappropriate, then why would anyone be surprised that you found inappropriate results?

Bill Watterson famously does not allow any merchandise for Calvin and Hobbes outside of the books - so the only Calvin and Hobbes merch you can get is Calvin urinating on something - totally allowed, because it's "fair use" - but do you think Watterson's happy about it?

1.  Based on what source do you claim that "Calvin peeing" is fair use?

2.  Bill Watterson famously doesn't care to pursue people who make knock-off Calvin & Hobbes merchandise.  It just hasn't been worth the time and effort to him to try and pursue them.  The is related to why he didn't go for commercialization himself in the first place:  he's an artist who doesn't want to get tangled up in the business side of things.  So, do I think he's happy about "Calvin peeing"?  Honestly, I don't think he cares all that much one way or the other.

Weird Al

I know he doesn't do parodies without permission, but ... I think a lot of it is that he personally chooses not to do parodies without permission.

Correct.  Most famously, he really wants to do parodies of the artist formerly and then once again known as Prince.  He wants to, he could legally do so, but he chooses not to because Prince told him no.

[DTComposer]

Bill Watterson famously does not allow any merchandise for Calvin and Hobbes outside of the books - so the only Calvin and Hobbes merch you can get is Calvin urinating on something - totally allowed, because it's "fair use" - but do you think Watterson's happy about it?

1.  Based on what source do you claim that "Calvin peeing" is fair use?

2.  Bill Watterson famously doesn't care to pursue people who make knock-off Calvin & Hobbes merchandise.  It just hasn't been worth the time and effort to him to try and pursue them.  The is related to why he didn't go for commercialization himself in the first place:  he's an artist who doesn't want to get tangled up in the business side of things.  So, do I think he's happy about "Calvin peeing"?  Honestly, I don't think he cares all that much one way or the other.

I admit that I mis-spoke (mis-typed?) here. As I read the articles further, the assertion was that, because he gave up trying to sue for copyright infringement (realizing the amount of time and money it would take to go after everyone), an argument could be made now that Calvin is basically public domain because the creator has declined to defend the copyright.

I clearly miscalculated how popular it would be to show Calvin urinating on a Ford logo.

I think he cares, based on his steadfast refusals to merchandise C&H in the first place. But as you said, he just doesn't want to engage in the business/legal battles.

[Molandfreak]

Weird Al

I know he doesn't do parodies without permission, but ... I think a lot of it is that he personally chooses not to do parodies without permission.

Correct.  Most famously, he really wants to do parodies of the artist formerly and then once again known as Prince.  He wants to, he could legally do so, but he chooses not to because Prince told him no.

There is a story that better explains what goes on behind the scenes with his song "Buckingham Blues." If you listen to it, you'll hear that it was originally written as a parody of John Mellencamp's "Jack and Diane," but it was rewritten to become a blues song. Mellencamp originally gave his blessing for a parody, and Yankovic later did parody the song for a cameo in The Simpsons. The reason why he couldn't parody it at the time was because the recording studio was planning to make a movie based on the song at the time, so while he did receive permission from Mellencamp, he did not receive permission from the studio behind the original song.

[TheCatalyst31]

Weird Al

I know he doesn't do parodies without permission, but ... I think a lot of it is that he personally chooses not to do parodies without permission.

Correct.  Most famously, he really wants to do parodies of the artist formerly and then once again known as Prince.  He wants to, he could legally do so, but he chooses not to because Prince told him no.

There is a story that better explains what goes on behind the scenes with his song "Buckingham Blues." If you listen to it, you'll hear that it was originally written as a parody of John Mellencamp's "Jack and Diane," but it was rewritten to become a blues song. Mellencamp originally gave his blessing for a parody, and Yankovic later did parody the song for a cameo in The Simpsons. The reason why he couldn't parody it at the time was because the recording studio was planning to make a movie based on the song at the time, so while he did receive permission from Mellencamp, he did not receive permission from the studio behind the original song.

This happened again in 2006 with "You're Pitiful", his parody of James Blunt's "You're Beautiful". Apparently Blunt gave him permission, but Atlantic Records refused, so he released the song online for free instead (and vandalized the Atlantic Records Wikipedia page in the "White and Nerdy" video).

On the other hand, Lady Gaga's management team denied him permission to parody "Born This Way", so he released "Perform This Way" online for free too. Except nobody had talked to Lady Gaga herself about the parody, and when she heard it she personally cleared him to release it commercially.

[kphoger]

he did not receive permission from the studio behind the original song.

Atlantic Records refused

Lady Gaga's management team denied him permission

None of those statements mean they could actually legally prevent him from selling parodies of the songs in question.

In the case of You're Pitiful, in fact, in Weird Al's own words:

The legality in this case is somewhat moot.  James Blunt could still let me put it on my album if he really wanted to, but he obviously doesn't want to alienate his own record company... and my label could release the parody without Atlantic's blessing, but they don't really want to go to war with another label over this.  So really, it's more of a political matter than a legal matter.

I have a long-standing history of respecting artists' wishes.  So if James Blunt himself were objecting, I wouldn't even offer my parody for free on my Web site.  But since it's a bunch of suits—who are actually going against their own artist's wishes—I have absolutely no problem with it.