Hat tip to Andy here at LG for bringing this debacle to my attention.  

Apparently, Sarah Palin and PETA have been slinging mud at each other over a PETA game parodying Governor Palin.  

Of particular legal interest is the following email from Ingrid Newkirk of PETA to Bill McAllister from Palin’s office:

Dear Mr. McAllister, 

We base this on a phone call. Why don’t you ask in your office and be specific as to on what grounds you can sue us? We know that we can use the game as it’s pure parody. I thought people in Alaska had a sense of humor? Ingrid Newkirk

I attempted to spark a discussion regarding this popular misconception in my copyrights class.  It’s interesting that in the face of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (the “2-Live-Crew case”) and the preamble to §107 of the Copyright Act, people just sort of assume that if a work can be classified as a parody, it’s not copyright infringement.  In fact, that’s not at all what should come out of the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose decision.  

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, generally touted as the holding allowing parody, actually explains that the four factors enumerated within §107 (Fair Use) must still be considered.  In addition, the court should determine on a case-by-case analysis whether the use was commercial and/or transformative, whether it was actually parodical or simply satirical, and how much of the work was taken.  

In the end, it likely comes down to whether the infringed has deep enough pockets and cares enough to do anything about it.  Although I am a mere copyright student, it seems possible that a decision could come down in the relatively near-future that shakes the foundation of the current American tradition of parodying anything and everything in a commercial medium.

 Scary Movie 5, anyone?  No thanks.

Related posts:

1. Glenn Beck, Parody, and Trademark