drmcclainphd - Posted - 11/27/2015:  16:49:37

I saw from the wording of the full description that it seemed favorable to such fair use material, but I belong to another that has a very similar policy but chooses to avoid controversy but discouraging any activity that might be questioned, even though it could be answered favorably. But, the policy of "my paper, my policy" is always to be honored IMO. (Said policy is often called the editorial policy even though the editor has nothing to do with it -- the owner/publisher does). I'd prefer to stay within the realm of comfort of my hosts

Actually the concepts of parody and satire as fair use are protected. Any given use can be called into question. Parody, making fun of the source itself, is far easier to get considered fair use. Satire, using a source to make fun of something else, is more difficult. A great deal of questioned works fall somewhere in between. There are four conditions which are to be considered in any case, and I try to make sure any of my attempts at these are covered.

I was once asked to offer an opinion on a case involving the use of "We'll Meet Again" (most would know it from the end of Dr. Strangelove), still used in a similar sense but in a more overt manner. The last words of the chorus were "Klaatu barada nikto". One of the conditions was whether the acquired use would impact any present or future income of the original. I got to make the point that if it did have any effect, it would be to remind people of the original, and as all advertisers know, the more reps the more reputation, so the effect would probably be to increase any such outcome. I also got to make the point that any legal action of this sort that implies there would be an economic influence but refuses to take into account that such influence could go either way indicates either lack of understanding of the laws, or if they were understood, purposeful neglect of selected aspects, which constitutes barratry. With deer, it's headlights. With attorneys, it's the barest whiff of the possibility of a valid accusation of barratry. My client (the defense attorney) said that had he not already won, that would have done it. Word to the wise.

To be fair to those who bring such actions, the law requires that they do so against any significant or potentially significant infringement, or lose the protection of the copyright law against a greater infringement later. This makes some accusations more understandable. The DMCA provides a means for those to be handled in a way that does not bog down the court, and does not result in the erstwhile infringer being officially charged. This is a generally good thing all around, although it does open a door for automated machine gun style accusations via DMCA notices. The greatest sufferers of such activity are the DMCA contacts that (in the US at least) are required to register with the Library of Congress.

Apparently tired of handling the monumental backlog of DMCA notices both reasonable and machine gun overload, AOL changed their contact notification address but neglected to change their listing at LoC. To their bad luck they did so just as Harlan Ellison's attorney began attempting to file valid DMCA notices. For those not familiar with the public history of SF author Harlan Ellison, it would not be unkind to state that his personal stance on any given subject he chooses to take note of can best be described as "full tilt rant". To have his attorney attempt to do things the calm and quiet way and be ignored most definitely set him off. Still, he was willing to let AOL off easy and settle out of court. But AOL tried to drag their feet and deny any wrong doing, calling in the admins who ran the servers that carried usenet, where the infringing material was located. After providing proof that their admins did not, by their own testimony, did not understand how their Typhoon servers worked, I iced the cake by providing a copy of an AOL web page in which they gladly heaped congratulations upon themselves for funding the development of WinAmp. It was difficult for them to continue trying to appear as simply misunderstood, and completely supporting anti-piracy, when suddenly having to explain how they paid money for the development of what was then the #1 program for ripping CDs and burning copies. They suddenly settled out of court. I like to think they did so before Harlan could stop laughing and set the wheels in motion to own a piece if not the entirety of AOL.

As an aside, the action described above did not involve Dame Vera Lynn, who had made the song famous in her 1939 recording. At age 98, she is the oldest working musical talent in the world, with 91 years experience. If her health continues in her favor, she shows every possibility of lasting another 18 months and besting the longetivity of George Burns, and taking over the #1 spot. She already holds the records for oldest person to achieve a #1 (UK charts, beating out Arctic Monkeys and the Beatles that week) for We'll Meet Again: The Very Best of Vera Lynn, and a gold record for that same album, within 3 weeks of its release. I was told she was apprised of the case but chose to ignore it. With a career like hers, I'd assume she would have no interest in being bothered by the silly things the youngsters do.