Re: [rumori] park wars

From: illegal art (
Date: Mon Mar 26 2001 - 19:53:08 PST

>funny south park-starwars juxtaposition, done by 2 fans:
>interesting copyright-related angle - they were originally
>going to do a 64 minute film but realized that lifting audio
>straight from the Phantom Menace was going to get them in
>trouble. they also were approached by Comedy Central
>lawyers (about the south park content) who said since
>it was so well done and "fun" they would not take action...

this is interesting. they say "using 64 minutes of audio straight from the
movie crosses the boundaries from parody to "rip off.""...

this is always a fascinating subject... just when does art cross that line?



3. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used of the Copyrighted Work

The third factor analyzes the amount and substantiality of the copying in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The crucial determination is
whether the quality and value of the material copied from the original
copyrighted work is "reasonable" in relation to the purpose of copying.
Regretfully, there is no black and white rule that sets forth an absolute
ratio or quantity of words that may be used of the original work that would
ensure a finding of fair use. Instead there have been circumstances where a
court has found that the use of an entire work was fair use while under
different circumstances the use of a small fraction of a work failed to
qualify as a fair use. This factor not only evaluates the quantity that has
been copied but also the quality and importance of the copied material. The
courts when analyzing this factor evaluate whether the user of the original
copyrighted material has taken any more of the original work than was
necessary to achieve the purpose for which the material was copied from the
original work.

and from the same url regarding the pretty woman case...

As to the third factor, the amount and substantiality of the portion used
in relation to the copyrighted work, the Court indicated that a parody
presents a unique difficulty when evaluating the amount of copying because
the success of a parody depends upon its use of the original work while its
"art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin."
The Court then reverted to the "conjure up" test that would deny a finding
of fair use under this factor only when the parodist "has appropriated a
greater amount of the original work than is necessary to 'recall or conjure
up' the object of the [parody]." Traditionally the third factor weighs
against an infringer when the heart of the original work has been copied,
but it is the heart of the original that "most readily conjures up the song
for the parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim." The
question for the Court then became how much further could the parodist go
in copying the original once the heart of the original was used. The Court,
as did the trial court, believed that 2 Live Crew did not use any more
lyrics than were necessary from Oh, Pretty Woman and therefore ruled that
the third factor favored 2 Live Crew's fair use defense, but since the
Court had already remanded the case on the fourth factor it then also
decided to remand on the question o whether the quantity of copying was
excessive or not.

Rumori, the Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Sharerights extended to all.