Parody & Satire: To Use or Not to Use

If you’ve been told that you can use copyrighted works for satire without infringing, this is for you.

One of the most annoying things about lawyers is that they (myself included) are extremely particular about words. Terms that have one meaning in everyday language can carry a lot of baggage when used in law. In copyright law, one area where this really matters is the legal distinction between parody and satire. Mixing up these two words can have huge consequences for creators.

In copyright law, a parody is a work of art that directly criticizes the work it uses. In other words, the parody must make fun of the original work. Satire, on the other hand, uses an existing work to poke fun at something else entirely. If the copyrighted work is being used to comment on society (or anything other than the work itself), it’s satire—not parody.

Why does this matter? Because parody is usually protected under fair use, while satire usually is not.

Generally speaking, parodies are protected as a form of fair use—legal protection for certain uses of copyrighted works that would otherwise be considered infringement. While fair use is always a case-by-case analysis, true parodies tend to satisfy the four-factor test. By making fun of the original work, the parody doesn’t compete with the commercial value of that work. And because it directly critiques the original, courts are more likely to find the use transformative—and thus fair.

Satire leans in the opposite direction. In copyright law, satire uses copyrighted material to make fun of something other than the material it borrows. It relies on familiar works not to critique them, but because they make the satirist’s broader point more effectively. In this context, the use starts to look more like a derivative work—which is the exclusive right of the copyright holder—not fair use.

The Supreme Court formalized this distinction in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994). In that case, the band 2 Live Crew successfully argued that their version of Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman” was a parody and therefore fair use. That Supreme Court win was significant—but it required an incredibly nuanced argument. The lawyers for 2 Live Crew demonstrated that their modified lyrics were directly making fun of Orbison’s original. The Court agreed and found the lyrics to be a transformative parody.

Opinions may differ on whether the Court got it right, but the holding still stands.

Representing artists and creators, I regularly hear people using “parody” and “satire” interchangeably. But in copyright law, these words carry very different meanings. A parody is usually protected under fair use; satire usually isn’t. Still, as with most things in law, these conclusions aren’t always black and white. There’s nuance.

Helping my clients navigate that nuance is one of my favorite parts of being an entertainment attorney