Comments | mollyringwraith: Parody and legality

mollyringwraith

Parody and legality

Jan 24, 2007 17:11

Questions for those of the legal persuasion:

People have asked me when I'm going to "publish" my Lord of the Rings parodies. Some have gotten almost belligerent about it: "Why aren't they published yet??! What are you waiting for???!!" and so forth. :) I kind of figured I couldn't publish them, since they use names and plot points that I didn't ( Read more... )

lord of the rings, lj business, parody by me

Comments 18

lilagrubb January 25 2007, 11:47:40 UTC

I believe parody is considered fair use.

Fair use lilagrubb January 27 2007, 07:11:59 UTC

OK, I was going to keep my mouth shut until I got to this one. Fair use is an incredibly complicated and frustratingly unpredictable area of the law, so I'm not going to make any predictions about how this would come out. Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (that's 17 U.S.C. 107 for those of you playing along at home) says ( ... )

Re: Fair use mollyringwraith January 27 2007, 17:34:34 UTC

Hi Tracey!

I'm glad there are people who know more about this stuff than I do. And no, I definitely don't want to see the inside of a court. :)

But what about precedents like Cleolinda Jones's book 'MOVIES IN FIFTEEN MINUTES', which does almost exactly what my parodies do; or Dave Barry's column with a parody script of LOTR, which is even more like mine--and written AFTER mine, I might add--which he undoubtedly got paid for, and which ran in newspapers all over the US?

And if a regular publisher wanted to publish it, would they take the heat rather than me? Suppose that would be a point in the contract...

Well, it's still not worth a battle, in my opinion, but now I'm curious!

Thanks--
Mol

Fair use lilagrubb January 27 2007, 19:55:51 UTC

Keep an eye out for an email on your Earthlink account.

Tracey

gillen January 25 2007, 16:32:18 UTC

National Lampoon published their Bored of the Rings and Doon parodies, so I don't see why not.