JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Mentor Questions Forum Publisher's permission to do a parody

Hi,

I've been trying to get in touch with Warner/Chappell publishing to get permission and/or a license to record and distribute a parody my friend and I wrote. I have left three voicemails and sent a couple of emails over the course of 4 weeks and still have had no response.

Should I submit the request via "snail mail" or is just keep calling until I reach a live person in the licensing department? I realize they are a huge company and I don't want to be a pest but I also do not have any indication that my request is being addressed.

If we were simply doing a cover, I think we could just advise them that we are going to pay for a compulsary license but since a parody is more like a derivitive work, I want to make sure that we cover our butts properly on this.

Should I seek an attorney who may be able to get someone's attention at Warner/Chappell? Any advice would be appreciated. We need to move on this while the song being parodied is still popular.

Thanks,

Van

Van, could www.HarryFoxAgency.com tell you anything? They could possibly grant a mechanical license and answer the question of parody.

I presume you know the parody must not be offensive, lewd or obscene, profane, demeaning to anyone, any individual or race or sex or religion. It should not bring ridicule on the original artist, the original song, or any product name.

If it's funny and can get airplay, and you can storyboard a video rendition, it can generate income for the songwriter(s) and publisher, maybe generate additional interest in the original artist's rendition, so they should be interested.

Try Harry Fox Agency and see what you can learn. They may get you through to Warner/Chapell. And come back and let us know.

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the input but I contacted Harry Fox about 5 weeks ago. They referred me to the publishers because a parody is considered a derivitive work which they don't license.

We plan to start making the parody available as an mp3 download at first, then try to get local airplay as well as sending it to Dr. Demento. Hopefully, we'll start getting enough attention to do more with it from there.

Thanks,

Van

You should definitely get a hold of them to discuss your derivative work idea. Getting their attention is clearly the big issue at the moment- call multiple times per day and send a certified letter too. You just have to be persistent. Even as an attorney I sometimes have difficulty getting a hold of people. But since this is my job I get to call as often as possible during the day. It's more difficult if you're trying to squeeze things in during work. Try as many different people as possible and you might want to think about trying the agent of the artist you're contemplating parodying- they might at least be able to smooth the way for you or let you know who to get in touch with. Good luck!

Ana Maria Schwartz
Attorney at Law

www.AMSchwartzLaw.com

Thank you Ana. I guess I'll just keep bugging them until they can't ignore me (hopefully) anymore...

Can you tell me if my understanding is correct that I only need the permission of one of the copyright holders to do the parody? The publishing is split 4 ways (4 x 25%) but Warner/Chappell appears to be the main company controlling two or more of the publishers.

If I'm correct, I can get Warner/Chappell's permission and send them the appropriate fees and/or future royalty share(s) and it would be up to them to distribute those appropriately. Is this correct?

Thanks for your time.

Van

There should only be one actual copyright holder of the song, even if the profits are split 4 ways. Go to the copyright source.

If there are fees then yes, you should verify it with Warner/Chappell but they should be able to do all of the distribution for you.

Remember though, if you don't get permission there is a chance for you to still publish your song under the fair use doctrine that is often cited with parodies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use gives a good overview of how it works.

Ana Maria Schwartz
Attorney at Law

www.AMSchwartzLaw.com

I tried to reply to this a couple of times and my replies seem to have disappeared. So, I'm going to quote you this time and hope that my other posts don't show up later...

What worries me about "fair use" is that it's a gray area of the law from what I can tell. The odds are that Warner/Chappell wouldn't even care if I never made any money with it but if they decided to go after me, I'd never have the resources to battle them in court. Fair use or not, I'd feel a whole lot better with their blessing.

Thanks for taking your time to assist.

Van

Go hire a lawyer, cheapskate. LOL

Having sat in those big publisher chairs..MCA..Do as Ana suggested..Send a certified letter..
If you do not have a name ,call the company and ask for the legal dept, and get a name there , to address your letter to.They will supply you with one.

You are a pain in the butt to them , in reality, so they are just pushing you aside and hoping you will go away...Dont

You are very low on thier prioity list and its a long list.

Dude...


http://songconsultant.com

Van-
The answer to this question is going to depend, at least in part, on whether your composition is really a "parody." For purposes of the law of copyright, a "parody" means use of some elements of the prior authors composition to create a new one that, at lest in part, comments on the original author's work. The Court cases that interpret parody issues focus on whether the new composition supercedes the original work, or is transformative (alters the original with new expression meaning or message). These determinations are made by the Courts on a case-by-case basis, and there is no bright line to demarcate when a composition ceases to be a parody. However, there are a number of considerations to look at.
If what you have is truly a parody, you MAY NOT need the permission of the prior author or publisher, because true parody, like other comment or criticism, may claim "fair use" under the copyright law.
This forum is not designed to make legal analysis about particular compositions. However, I agree with PogromWright's comment above. In this situation, I would hire an intellectual property rights attorney to take a look at this and advise you whether you even need permission in the first place.

Okay, I was sure I replied to this a couple of weeks ago but my post never showed up. Finally heard from both Warner/Chappell and BMG. They both denied permission. So we took our version, redid the melody and messed around with the backing tracks so that the new version should only remind folks of the original song but not sound too much like it.

Stu, as you pointed out, we probably would have gone ahead with it if our version had been a true parody but I think we might have had some trouble proving that in court. And I certainly have no intention of doing battle with the big dogs when they could bankrupt me just by dragging out the legal battle.

Thanks to all for the replies.