Griffiths, Jonathan --- "Fair dealing after Deckmyn: the United Kingdom’s defence for caricature, parody and pastiche" [2017] ELECD 297; in Richardson, Megan; Ricketson, Sam (eds), "Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017) 64

Book Title: Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment

Editor(s): Richardson, Megan; Ricketson, Sam

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN (hard cover): 9781784710781

Section: Chapter 3

Section Title: Fair dealing after Deckmyn: the United Kingdom’s defence for caricature, parody and pastiche

Author(s): Griffiths, Jonathan

Number of pages: 38

Abstract/Description:

Parodies present a dilemma for copyright law. They often reproduce and adapt existing copyright works. However, they also play a prominent role in contemporary cultural and media practice and, in some instances, serve important social and political goals. Jurisdictions around the globe have attempted to resolve this dilemma by permitting parodists to use copyright works within certain limits. The mechanisms they employ vary. In many states, an exception is specifically targeted at parody. In others, parody is accommodated through a flexible application of the concept of infringement. In the United States, the open-ended fair use defence covers many forms of transformative use, including parody. Until 2014, the United Kingdom was unusual in having no effective safety valve for parody. In the distant past, a relatively elastic approach to the assessment of infringement provided some freedom for the unlicensed transformation of protected works. However, this flexibility has now been squeezed out and, as a result, parodies based on protected copyright works will almost always be regarded as reproducing a ‘substantial part’ of those works. Furthermore, while some parodies may fall within one of the established ‘permitted acts’ under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK) (‘CDPA’), many will not. Until recently, the most promising defence in this regard has been that for fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review of a work or performance of a work under section 30(1) of the CDPA. But this defence has a number of obvious drawbacks for parodists.