ABSTRACT
This paper considers how the courts should define parodies under UK copyright law, following the proposal by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Deckmyn and another v Vandersteen and others, Case C-201/13 that a parody must be ‘humorous’. Overall, it is argued that the British courts should adopt a generous and non-restrictive interpretation of parodies, as it is in the public interest to protect the unique and valuable societal benefits that they promote. Despite humour being arguably the most complex and convoluted aspect of the exception, it is suggested that humour is essential for parodies to function. The courts can effectively determine whether a parody is humorous by considering both the intention of the parodist and the effect it has upon an audience, but not necessarily the purported individual characteristics of ‘British humour’. Humour and parodies can also be harmful, as they are often inherently critical or offensive. It is argued that fair dealing, moral rights and other areas of law, such as defamation and hate speech, can be used by the courts to effectively balance the social benefits of parodies with the potential harms caused.
Wilson, Rosie, Comedy in Court: How Should the Courts Define Parodies and Humor Under UK Copyright Law? (April 15, 2019).
First posted 2020-10-28 07:20:56
Leave a Reply