FINAL EXAM:

• What are the facts of the case?
   
  
• Understand how the rules regarding fair use and parody were applied in this case.
   
  
• How does fair use foster artistic dialogue?
   
  
• If the new work truly transforms the original work, through comment, criticism, or additional material, why is it both more deserving of fair use protection and less likely to thwart the purpose of copyright law?
   
  
• Why is parody recognized as a form of fair use?
   
  
• What is the connection between parody and the four factors of fair use? What effect does the parodic nature of the work have on the application of the four factors?
   
  
• Why does parody have "an obvious claim to transformative value"?
   
  
• Deciding that the new work is a parody necessarily entails finding that the new work is what?
   
  
• In determining whether a new work is a parody of an original copyrighted work, what is the relevant inquiry? How is that applied in this case?
   
  
• What is the heart of any parody? What were the court's reasoning and conclusion regarding the parody at issue in this case?
   
  
• Did music reviewers perceive The Forest as a parody of Wonderful World?
   
  
• To constitute a "parody," a work must be directed, at least in part, at what and its commentary must have critical bearing on what?
   
  
• Why is work that appropriates material only for humorous effect treated differently under the fair use factors? How is it treated differently?
   
  
• Does the fair uses analysis as a whole focus on quantitative measurements or qualitative examination? How is that applied in this case?
   
  
• What was the court's reasoning in deciding that The Forest was not merely an attempt to gain commercial success while avoiding the drudgery of composing new material?
   
  
• Under the third factor, how much of the original should the parodist use? So the question is not whether the parodist appropriated the most recognizable parts of the original work, but whether the parodist then took so much additional material that the use becomes what?
   
  
• In general, the more transformative a new work is, the less likely it would be what? How does this apply particularly to parodies? How does this relate to the fourth factor?
   
  
• What were the court's reasoning and conclusion regarding the fourth factor in this case?
   
  
• How is it possible that a parodic work could have an effect on the potential markets for derivative works? Did that occur in this case? How does this case differ from the Pretty Woman case?
   
  
• Disallowing the use of Wonderful World in this case would contravene what and allow what? (What is the similarity between this court's reasoning and the reasoning of the court in Cardtoons?)
   
  

Return to Law/Ethics Adv./PR Home Page