The Fair Use Doctrine states that in order for a work to be considered fair use, it must contain:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not by itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. 

A parody of a song is a new work that has very little restriction.  If the parody has a different audience than the original song, then most of the original work may be borrowed.  Such as the parody of “What What in the Butt” from South Park.  They were able to use it because a different audience was viewing it other than the original musical audience of the singer, Samwell.  According to the doctrine, a parody must criticize the original work. 

In the South park episode, Butters recreated an internet song that Samwell had sung in real life and posted on You-Tube.  It received over 41 million views.  Brownmark Films sued Comedy Central and Viacom but it was overturned when they argued that it was a parody and fell under the Fair Use doctrine.  The creators of South Park argued that they were simply making fun of society and the recent craze of watching low income artistry and videos that were being uploaded to You-Tube.

Napster was the high profile copyright infringement case of the 1990’s.  Shawn Fanning started the program Napster, a programmer and hacker started in 1998. It was using an algorithm to download music in the form of an mp3.  People were uncertain whether downloading music was copyright infringement or the right of the people to be able to download the music of their favorite artists.  Bands like Metallica sued Napster because they felt that the music belonged to the artist.  Eventually, Napster was ordered to remove millions of songs owned by the record labels.  After Napster came music subscriptions like Apple I-Tunes and Spotify.  Napster was the game-changer and really shook the music industry.  They had never had to defend this sort of copyright infringement and they weren’t ready for it. 

A viewpoint that I found interesting in the article, Yes, Copyright’s Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public, is that there is a clause in the copyright law that says that the purpose does not lie in the artist’s ability to benefit from the creation – the purpose is “to promote the progress of science.”   This is the first time I have heard this and maybe I am not fully understanding it, but it raises the question of whether or not there is an expiration date on an artist’s content?  The article states that nowhere does it state in the copyright law that its purpose is to benefit the creator. 

Question:  Do you feel that an artist should be able to hold copyright over their work indefinitely or should it eventually belong to the public?

Works Cited:

10 April 2012. Masnik, Mike. Yes, Copyright’s Sole Purpose is to Benefit the Public  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120407/00171418416/yes-copyrights-sole-purpose-is-to-benefit-public.shtml

Downloaded:  Napster Documentary, Google Drive

Fair Use Doctrine https://printing.wsu.edu/copyright/

13 July, 2011 Hollywood Reporter. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/south-park-wins-lawsuit-what-210849