I was watching the latest episode of saturday night live and started to think about what constituted original content. Many of the saturday night skits are made from the parodying of other media and popular culture. In 1994 the Supreme Court justified a parody under fair use because 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.” 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.” I never really thought about parodies, such as the ones Weird Al creates, in this way before.
I am a huge snl fan and I never once thought about parodies in terms of copyrighting and fair use. With so many parody type movies out there as well these days, I never really considered most of them to necessarily be beneficial but I did consider them to be more of criticisms, making this definition one I can agree with.
That is an interesting thought. Now that I am thinking about it, is the whole act of videos posted on youtube that are parodies or reenactments of the real things ethical? For example, in relation to music, did artists give every “youtuber” the right to re-sing, make fun of, or change their song? How is this okay according to copyright laws? It is one thing to sing the song with your friends or when you are in the shower, but re-publishing the song on a public website, despite stating it is not your own work, still causes viewers to experience something that the original artist did not create. I’m not sure that this is really fair to the original artists.
I think that parodies are in part essential to fully understanding works of literature. By creating a parody someone has to understand the themes of the original, satirize them and then present them in an alternative method (usually comedy). Because someone else has to first interpret the work by viewing a parody audiences gain the Author’s original intention for the work as well as the Author of the parody’s view on the work. Therefore, parodies of work give audiences two views on the same work, the original intention and the humorous satirized version.
Now this I can agree with. Indeed, parodies are, at least, just another way to interpret and comment on a work. The astute reader/viewer will understand that it is merely a lens through which to see the work. An even more talented observer would be able to divine the parodied work by only seeing the parody.
When I think of what a parody is, the first thing that immediately comes to my mind is the “Scary Movie” series. When I had first watched several of these movies, I hadn’t yet watched many of the movies that they poke fun of, and so the movie itself did not seem as hilarious to me as it did to others. However, after getting a bit older and watching some of the movies that this series makes fun of, I found these movies much funnier as a whole. I think this shows just how important it is for a parody’s audience to be familiar with the original works it makes fun of. Because of this, and the fact that a parody’s success is so dependent on these original works, I think it is surprising that parodies are under fair use.