As a side note, it is well established that paradoy is fair use... THe post you linked clearly falls under the description of fair use parody below. Its not the same thing as what MY posted.
>Campbell v. AcuffRose
Music, Inc.
The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that a parody may qualify as fair use
under § 107. According to the Court, a parody is the “use of some elements of a
prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on
that author’s works.” Id. at 580. Like other forms of comment or criticism,
parody can provide social benefit, “by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in
the process, creating a new one.” Id. In other words, parodies can be considered
“transformative” works, as opposed to merely “superseding” works. Since
transformative works “lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine’s guarantee of
breathing space within the confines of copyright,” the more transformative the
parody, the less will be the importance of other § 107 factors that may weigh
against a finding of fair use.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: