Web Site Hits Since Jan 1, 2000

Are Christian Parodies Legal?
[Christian Resources] [WEBster Home]
Disclaimer: If you don't like Rock music, you won't like Christian parodies of rock tunes. That being the case, why waste your time reading this stuff? It would be much better for you to go praise the Lord in a way that is acceptable to you rather than get all caught up in the emotions associated with this subject. This essay is intended for those who might like this genre but are wondering about whether their interest is somehow "unholy." If you disagree, feel free to write your own essays and publish them on the Internet.

Disclaimer #2: I am not a lawyer. The opinions in this essay are my own; I would not recommend you assign any legal value to these opinions. Consult a knowledgeable attorney before doing anything that could have the possibility of violating existing copyright laws.

Are Christian parodies legal?

That's a real good question. ApologetiX attempts to answer this question by pointing out that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that parodies are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ApologetiX provides a link to the site that explains this ruling. In this particular case, 2 Live Crew claimed to have done a parody of Roy Orbison's song "Pretty Woman." The resulting song was rather vulgar (in line with most of 2 Live Crew's material) and Roy Orbison's estate filed a lawsuit because of their perceived damage that this parody caused to the original recording. The Supreme Court ruled that parodists must be protected under the First Amendment because it is likely that the original author would refuse permission to create the parody if it was poking fun at the artist or the song. Therefore, a parodist may use the original material without permission and without paying royalties.

However, the Supreme Court was very clear that they weren't giving total freedom to the parodists. Each song had to be considered on a case by case basis to judge whether or not it was a valid parody.

Most of the lyrics that ApologetiX have rewritten are not parodies of the original song in the sense that they do not comment on, criticize, or make fun of the song or performer. So it's difficult to say whether the Supreme Court's decision applies to the type of "parodies" that ApologetiX produces. I'm sure you could argue at a higher level and say that J. Jackson and ApologetiX are making a comment about the fact that the original artists should have written Christian songs, but this is a weak argument.

The bottom line is that it's probably an open question whether the stuff ApologetiX is doing violates the copyright laws. Until their work gets tested in court we may never know. Furthermore, the Supreme Court suggests that each parody must be handled on a case by case basis; so the fact that ApologetiX prevails in one case doesn't mean that all their work is problem free.

Looking at other bands who perform Christian parodies, you see a similar pattern. Mark Bradford's lyrics are quite similar in content and form to ApologetiX' (one could argue that Mark's lyrics tend to be more humorous, on the average, but there are still lots of songs that are deadly serious). Even Nick Alexander produces some very serious songs, despite his claim of humor (personally, the only thing I find humorous about "Tithe after Tithe" is its title; maybe this is just my warped sense of humor though). Ron Perry, since he uses many of the original lines from the tunes he parodies, is really skating on thin ice (in the original 2 Live Crew lawsuit, Orbison's estate was complaining because 2 Live Crew stole one line from the original song; of course, Oribison's estate lost, so this claim doesn't mean anything).

One very strong argument in favor of these Christian parodists is the First Amendment. Not only does this guarantee freedom of speech, it also guarantees freedom of association and freedom of religion. If 2 Live Crew can argue that the First Amendment gives them the right to criticize Roy Orbison's lyrics for "Pretty Woman" on the basis that it is unlikely they'd be given permission for such a work, then I'd bet you could make a very strong case that the First Amendment also gives a band the right to make a religious statement using a song. After all, some song writers (e.g., Marilyn Manson) would probably refuse to give a religious parodist like J. Jackson permission to write a Christian parody of one of that artist's songs. Of course, I am not a lawyer nor am I well-versed in the copyright law, but this seems reasonable to me based on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling.

The bottom line is that until one of these Christian parody bands gets sued and loses in court, we can probably consider what they're doing to be legal.

By the way, this issue of legality only applies to performances of these Christian parodies using the original tunes. The lyrics themselves, without the associated music are nothing more than poetry which the First Amendment clearly protects. So these Christian parodists' activities come into question only when they perform their poetry to the tune of some other copyrighted song. (This is a very important issue because I also write parodies of secular songs; since I don't perform or record them for mass consumption, I don't have to worry about this issue.)

Here is an interesting excerpt from an article in the L.A. Times dated January 7, 2004

COMMENTARY
'Lawsuit Barbie' Fails for Mattel
Court upholds an artist's use of the doll in his series of photographs.

By Christine Steiner, Christine Steiner


The Copyright Act identifies these uses as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Courts have recognized other uses, such as parody, free speech, free expression and the public good. For example, quoting portions of books or letters, copying images for study purposes or running copyrighted footage on the evening news would all be considered fair.

The law identifies a four-factor analysis to aid in determining what constitutes fair use: the purpose and character of the use; the nature of the underlying work; the amount taken; and the potential market effect. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rap group 2 Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" because the audience was different, the new song transformed the old with new meaning, and the market effect was determined to be nil. [emphasis mine, RLH]

By applying these factors, the 9th Circuit determined that the "Food Chain Barbie" series was a legitimate parody. Forsythe transformed the meaning and intent of the Barbie doll into new and different work, and consumers were not likely to confuse a naked Barbie in a blender with an authorized Mattel product.

An Interesting Link Discussing this issue:

http://www.artslaw.org/PARODY.HTM
On, or around Feb 28, 2002, J. John Jackson of ApologetiX send the following excellent defense of the group's parodies. I have included this essay here with his permission.

WHAT DO WE THINK WE'RE DOING?

J. John Jackson, ApologetiX

We get asked from time to time if a serious song can be considered a parody and conversely, if we feel parody is an appropriate way to convey the truth of the Gospel. So, as the lyricist for the band, I wanted to share my thoughts with you on that subject. According to my Webster's dictionary, a parody is "a literary composition in which the form and expression of serious writings are closely imitated but adapted to a ridiculous subject or a humorous method of treatment; a burlesque imitation of a serious poem."

In ApologetiX, we attempt to closely imitate literary compositions and adapt them to a subject that seems to the world to be ridiculous. Of course, to the members of ApologetiX, that subject matter is not ridiculous. However, we are well aware when we perform these parodies, that the world sees the mix of secular rock and roll (primarily hedonistic) mixed with religion as ridiculous. Also, many of our parodies are indeed humorous, and even ones that I didn't intend to be humorous, are humorous to some audiences, because people seem to find something inherently funny in a rock song being used for religious purposes.

Now, back to the second part of that parody definition ... "a burlesque imitation of a serious poem." Burlesque is defined by the same dictionary as "tending to excite laughter by ludicrous images, or by a contrast between the subject and the manner of treating it." That word takes me back to a pastor who had us play a concert at his church in the mid-90's, but called the story of Jonah a "burlesque" when he talked to us after the concert, and he thought of our song "Jonah Jonah" as a burlesque. And he liked that. Obviously, we don't think of the story of Jonah as a burlesque. We believe it's a true story. But that pastor seemed to think he was so much smarter than people who take the Bible literally and he seemed more worried about the value of the antique stained-glass windows in his church than he did about the message of the Gospel. We felt like undercover agents in his church. I think if he had realized how seriously we believed the Bible, he never would have allowed us in!

But I digress. In keeping with the definition of burlesque, there is a strong contrast between the subject of our parodies (religious matters; I hate the word religious, but that's how the world classifies it, and they're the ones who judge parody) and the manner of treatment (serious rock and roll songs). Prime example: The idea of using an Eminem-type song for an altar call, as we did in "The Real Slim Shady." That is a ludicrous image to the majority of the population.

Here's how the U.S. Supreme Court defined parody in their landmark ruling that opened the door for what we do: "The germ of parody lies in the definition of the Greek parodeia, quoted in Judge Nelson's Court of Appeals dissent, as 'a song sung alongside another.' 972 F. 2d, at 1440, quoting Encyclopedia Britannica 768 (15th ed. 1975). Modern dictionaries accordingly describe a parody as a 'literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule,' [n.12] or as a 'composition in prose or verse in which the characteristic turns of thought and phrase in an author or class of authors are imitated in such a way as to make them appear ridiculous.' [n.13] For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works. See, e. g., Fisher v. Dees, supra, at 437; MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F. 2d 180, 185 (CA2 1981). If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger. [n.14] Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so
has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims') imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing."

Note that the word parody actually comes from the Greek for "a song sung alongside each other." You'll also want to note that the parody can either be making a commentary on the substance or the style of the original. As you know, our songs always spoof the rhyme scheme of the original as closely as possible, commenting often on the substance and always on the style, showing that we are in effect poking fun at the original work, whether we do so with a serious subject matter or not.

In effect, at the bottom of every ApologetiX song, there is this message: "You know, with a few modifications, almost anything, even seemingly formerly profane things, can be used to glorify God." To me, it's like Balaam's donkey; God sometimes has a humorous way of delivering the message (Now, you know that God surely realized that the world would find that story funny as it was passed down through the ages), but that doesn't make the message any less true. Or as we say, "Just because it's funny doesn't mean it isn't true." And just because it isn't knee-slapping funny doesn't mean it isn't a parody, either.

Although we are dead serious about our message, we are presenting it in a humorous way. Jesus presented truths of the Gospel, including the message of salvation and the finality of judgment, with parables, some of them very amusing when you look into the context of the society in which they were presented, and it must have seemed to the religious establishment of his day as almost profane to take such glorious religious principles and lower them to the status of word-picture stories that even the common people could understand. But Jesus knew that the medium was effective. And that's why we do what we do.