A musical mash up of Johnny Cash and Barbie Girl, created by YouTuber There I Ruined It, was played for Congress in a bad example of AI threats.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    34 months ago

    Not according to the copyright alliance (emphasis mine):

    While both parody and satire use humor as a tool to effectuate a message, again, the purpose of a parody is to comment on or criticize the work that is the subject of the parody. By definition, a parody is a comedic commentary about a work, that requires an imitation of the work. Satire, on the other hand, even when it uses a creative work as the vehicle for the message, offers commentary and criticism about the world, not that specific creative work. Therefore, parodies use copyrighted works for purposes that fair use was designed to protect.

    https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/parody-considered-fair-use-satire-isnt/

    • @FireTower
      link
      English
      54 months ago

      The issue is there is not clear commentary on either Cash or the Barbie song. Perhaps it’s meant to be contextually interpreted in a specific situation to act as commentary on something else, where it might be satire. And the fact that the two melded together offers a funny juxtaposition isn’t necessary commentary.

      What does the author think of Johnny Cash or the Barbie song? What does he mean when he has the Beach Boys sing 99 Problems? The Red Hot Chili Peppers video from 10 months ago probably would get parody status. Because what they sound like to people who don’t like them is actually commentary on the band. But so many of his works we can ask what should society walk away with from “Hank Williams sings Straight Outta Compton”? There simply is no message or commentary in most of these.

      While a parody targets and mimics the original work to make a point, a satire uses the original work to criticize something else entirely.

      Legal Zoom

      If anything granting it satire status is generous.