Michael Cheney did this. But...

[Sumit Menon]

Hey guys,

Michael Cheney is one of the coolest marketer ever. I absolutely love his promotions.

Once recently, for promoting Jeff Johnson's coaching membership he did this:

Michael Cheney sings Britney Spears

(This is no aff. link. I'm not promoting him either. I don't even know him. Although I wish )

Cool, right?

One question...

Isn't that copyright violation? Isn't the music copyright to someone (Britney Spears maybe)? How could he use it?

Would love your inputs.

Thanks,
Sumit.

[RGallowitz]

Naah, there are MILLIONS of karaoke cds out there with that song on it. Plus I highly doubt that it's illegal to sing along with a song. plus he is even changing the words.

[Mark Brian]

Yeah I think it would only cause trouble if he actually sells the song.

[Sam Rodrigo]

HI, I'd call it a parody, and well under the fair use copyright clause. Nicely done. Brittany need not fear though.

Sam

[Sumit Menon]

Quoting Wikipedia:

Fair use and parody

Producers or creators of parodies of a copyrighted work have been sued for infringement by the targets of their ridicule, even though such use may be protected as fair use. These fair use cases distinguish between parodies (using a work in order to poke fun at or comment on the work itself) and satires (using a work to poke fun at or comment on something else). Courts have been more willing to grant fair use protections to parodies than to satires, but the ultimate outcome in either circumstance will turn on the application of the four fair use factors.
In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[15] Supreme Court recognized parody as a fair use, even when done for profit. Roy Orbison's publisher, Acuff-Rose Music Inc., had sued 2 Live Crew in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than used for mere advertising, commercial sale did not bar the defense. The Campbell court also distinguished parodies from satire, which they described as a broader social critique not intrinsically tied to ridicule of a specific work, and so not deserving of the same use exceptions as parody because the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work.
A number of appellate decisions have recognized parody as a protected fair use, including both the Second (Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.) and Ninth Circuits (Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions). Most recently, Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, a suit was brought unsuccessfully against the publication of The Wind Done Gone, which reused many of the characters and situations from Gone with the Wind, but told the events from the point of view of the slaves rather than the slaveholders. The Eleventh Circuit, applying Campbell, recognized that The Wind Done Gone was a protected parody, and vacated the district court's injunction against its publication.

Source: Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, the Court decides?

Sorry, I'm not very good at English, but what does this mean:

The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than used for mere advertising, commercial sale did not bar the defense.