You don’t need permission for true parody but changing the lyrics (unless you do so to comment on the original work or author) isn’t that.
Take Amish Paradise. It commented a bunch on the Amish. But it didn’t say anything about Coolio or Coolio’s work.
The issue is there is not clear commentary on either Cash or the Barbie song. Perhaps it’s meant to be contextually interpreted in a specific situation to act as commentary on something else, where it might be satire. And the fact that the two melded together offers a funny juxtaposition isn’t necessary commentary.
What does the author think of Johnny Cash or the Barbie song? What does he mean when he has the Beach Boys sing 99 Problems? The Red Hot Chili Peppers video from 10 months ago probably would get parody status. Because what they sound like to people who don’t like them is actually commentary on the band. But so many of his works we can ask what should society walk away with from “Hank Williams sings Straight Outta Compton”? There simply is no message or commentary in most of these.
While a parody targets and mimics the original work to make a point, a satire uses the original work to criticize something else entirely.
If anything granting it satire status is generous.
It’s a composition in the style of Johnny Cash that’s meant to be funny. That’s parody.
That’s satire. In the US for something to be parody it has to be a commentary on the original work(s) or author(s). A parody of Johnny Cash would be something like if they used AI to copy his song note for note but had lyrics that criticized him for portraying himself as bluecollar in his music despite his wealth.
Parody receives higher protection than satire because the parodist is actually trying to make a statement. Most “music parody” like that of Weird Al is satire, which is why Weird Al asks for permission from the original artists.
The video’s maker claims this is parody but seems more like just (at best) satire which receives less legal protections typically. It doesn’t seem that there’s any commentary on the work original IPs, given the rest of his body of work.
This model just came out recently. I wouldn’t pass judgement on them for that.
I think it might just be because we keep sending people down them that are in the target market of life alert.
Worse than it had been previously.
I meant to proactively remove your own post from circulation. Communities that are for things that the stereotypical Lemmy user doesn’t agree with like the Christianity or Conservative one tend to get down voted by people outside the group even if the particular post is a good post for that community.
I haven’t use the web page much I used connect and have since transitioned to boost.
There needs to be a way to opt to remove your post from hot/active.
POV: you just opened a link someone posted on Lemmy via your mobile app.
My understanding is that female refers to the gender while woman refers specifically to an adult of the aforementioned gender. As in you wouldn’t call a 3 year girl a woman and you wouldn’t call a 90 year old woman a girl, as girl carries a diminutive connotation compared to the more apt term woman.
The people who successfully find it. That why you always hear about people looking for it but never about anyone finding it.
/S
It’s clearly just any attempt to throw weight and gain market hold by offering crazy deals (which seem to be decreasing in value now). The idea is one you order once it’s likely you might order again.
I wish this kind of anti competitive practice was regulated.
Your effective remedy in this situation is to uninstall Tiktok.
If you minimize a video on mobile ads also fuck up the aspect ratio so when you try to enlarge it to skip it’s harder.
Webster offers a lay definition not a legal definition. Often in law words are interpreted to have meanings different than they normally would. For example a company would be considered to be a person for the purposes of a law saying “No person shall dump oil in the river”.