122

A musical mash up of Johnny Cash and Barbie Girl, created by YouTuber There I Ruined It, was played for Congress in a bad example of AI threats.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago

It's straight up parody. It's a composition in the style of Johnny Cash that's meant to be funny. That's parody.

[-] thurstylark@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

See: Weird Al's polka medleys.

He's got years of this under his belt. His whole career is based on this.

I think There I Ruined It is going to be fine.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

It's a composition in the style of Johnny Cash that's meant to be funny. That's parody.

That's satire. In the US for something to be parody it has to be a commentary on the original work(s) or author(s). A parody of Johnny Cash would be something like if they used AI to copy his song note for note but had lyrics that criticized him for portraying himself as bluecollar in his music despite his wealth.

Parody receives higher protection than satire because the parodist is actually trying to make a statement. Most "music parody" like that of Weird Al is satire, which is why Weird Al asks for permission from the original artists.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Wut?

Parody is by definition imitation, frequently poorly, but usually excessively over-dramatic. It doesn’t have to be a commentary on the original.

Satire has nothing to do with imitation at all, and is instead sarcastic or facetious for the purpose of drawing attention to things.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Webster offers a lay definition not a legal definition. Often in law words are interpreted to have meanings different than they normally would. For example a company would be considered to be a person for the purposes of a law saying "No person shall dump oil in the river".

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Cornell law also disagrees

While it is common that yes, parodies are indeed social commentary, this is far from necessary for something to be a parody (and the matter only really comes into play considering if the original work’s use falls under fair use or not.

The defining characteristic remains that it is an exaggerated imitation of something. It doesn’t receive higher protections- it just more commonly is found to be fair use than otherwise.

[-] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Weird Al either changes the lyrics (parody) or makes a polka version of the tune with the original lyrics. Still immune from lawsuits. He doesn't have to get the artist's permission. He does it out of courtesy, because he's a good human being

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

Would say “protected from losing lawsuits” by my understanding. If lawsuits were NBD that’d be pretty pedantic, but they can still be costly to win.

The law might give you a nearly bulletproof defense, but defending yourself saps a lot of mental energy, time, and money.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

You don't need permission for true parody but changing the lyrics (unless you do so to comment on the original work or author) isn't that.

Take Amish Paradise. It commented a bunch on the Amish. But it didn't say anything about Coolio or Coolio's work.

[-] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

Not according to the copyright alliance (emphasis mine):

While both parody and satire use humor as a tool to effectuate a message, again, the purpose of a parody is to comment on or criticize the work that is the subject of the parody. By definition, a parody is a comedic commentary about a work, that requires an imitation of the work. Satire, on the other hand, even when it uses a creative work as the vehicle for the message, offers commentary and criticism about the world, not that specific creative work. Therefore, parodies use copyrighted works for purposes that fair use was designed to protect.

https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/parody-considered-fair-use-satire-isnt/

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

The issue is there is not clear commentary on either Cash or the Barbie song. Perhaps it's meant to be contextually interpreted in a specific situation to act as commentary on something else, where it might be satire. And the fact that the two melded together offers a funny juxtaposition isn't necessary commentary.

What does the author think of Johnny Cash or the Barbie song? What does he mean when he has the Beach Boys sing 99 Problems? The Red Hot Chili Peppers video from 10 months ago probably would get parody status. Because what they sound like to people who don't like them is actually commentary on the band. But so many of his works we can ask what should society walk away with from "Hank Williams sings Straight Outta Compton"? There simply is no message or commentary in most of these.

While a parody targets and mimics the original work to make a point, a satire uses the original work to criticize something else entirely.

Legal Zoom

If anything granting it satire status is generous.

this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
122 points (94.9% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35383 readers
977 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS