Parodies are works that use humor to analyze, mock, or point out flaws in other works. Parody, by definition, requires the spectators to comprehend both the original work and the way in which it is crit. As a result, it is argued that a parody is dependent on and draws from the original work. One of the first examples of parody may be found in ancient Greece, where playwrights mocked the characteristics of tragic plays or poetry in a light-hearted environment. This is where parody began, with comedic Greek translations of pre-existing writings that did not necessarily ridicule the previous masterpieces.
The word “parody,” since the Greek prefix “par” or “para” may refer to something that is next to, beside, or connected to another item, as well as something that is completely opposite or opposing to such a thing. It may be difficult to define or limit the scope of parodies since their meanings have evolved and taken on various shapes over time. Parodies are more frequently understood in current times. It may be expressed through any artistic medium and does not always have to be a critique of the work itself; it can also be used to stress or criticize a topic, an author, a system, a philosophy, an ideal, or even a specific issue.
Parody and Fair Dealing
In most cases, copyright infringement refers to any unauthorized use of protected content. Nonetheless, because the public has a right to free speech and expression, some illegal uses of copyrighted information are permissible under the law and are not considered an infringement. Fair use, also known as fair dealing, is a legal theory that allows for the nonviolent use of copyrighted information for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and reviews. For example, if one wishes to criticize a text, one should be permitted to mention it without seeking permission.
According to the court’s decision in Blackwood & Sons Ltd. v. A.N. Parasuraman, fair dealing implies that the suspected infringer has no desire to compete with and benefit from the work’s copyright owners. Moreover, the claimed infringer’s motivations for handling the material must be unethical. In India, parody has been used as a form of political criticism ever since the establishment of an alternative press under British rule. The Copyright Act, 1957 does not include the phrase “parody,” however it can be understood under Section 52, which allows for the review of works as legal uses of copyright.
However, fair use does not totally cover parodies. The legality of each parody would be open to scrutiny and would rely on the facts and circumstances of each case because they are not expressly authorized nor banned under the Copyright Act. According to the Blackwood Case, in order to plead the fair use defense, a parodist must fulfill two requirements, he must not attempt to compete with the copyright owners, and he must not make inappropriate use of the original.
Judicial Interpretation
The Copyright Act of 1957 does not define or specify the parameters of a parody, hence the courts are mostly responsible for determining how it should be interpreted. There is a fine line between critiquing or reviewing a work and copying it, therefore it is crucial to establish certain rules to distinguish between fair use and intellectual property infringement.
Famous writer Thoppil Bhasi created the drama Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma in 1952. It was well received and performed on several occasions. The defendant wrote a counterplay based on this play in 1995, and it was printed in India Today’s Malayalam edition. The defendant was accused of copyright infringement because he had included numerous significant pieces of the work, including a replica of the characters. The court looked at both plays scene by scene and found that the counter-primary drama’s goal was not to copy the existing play but rather to critique its philosophy.
As a result, the court decided there was not a strong enough case to prosecute the defendant for infringement. In order to determine the legality of parodies, the Kerala High Court also established a three-part test known as the “Substantiality Test” that includes the following criteria: (i) determining the quantity and value of the matter taken in consideration of the criticism; ii) the motive for which it is taken; and iii) the odds of competition between the two works. As a result, in the eyes of the Kerala High Court, a parody that uses the source material to critique the original does not violate the terms of fair use and is thus acceptable.
The Kerala High Court appears to have used the Hubbard v. Vosper case while making its ruling in the Civic Chandran case, according to a quotation from Lord Denning as follows:
“You must first take into account how many and how extensive the quotations and excerpts are. Are they overall too many and lengthy to be fair? Next, you need to think about how they are used. They may be treated fairly if they serve as the foundation for commentary, criticism, or reviews. They could be unjust if they serve a competing aim while conveying the same information as the author. The proportions must then be considered. It could be unfair to take lengthy chunks and attach brief comments. Nonetheless, lengthy remarks and brief snippets could be appropriate.”
The use of replication of the original work in parodies is authorized to some extent. The judiciary grasps those parodies, unlike other types of fair dealing, which entail some borrowing from the existing work by their very nature. A parody has occasionally been found by courts to violate someone’s copyright, nevertheless. The court stated that the defendant’s advertisement was a copy of the plaintiff’s advertisement, which constituted copyright infringement, and prohibited the broadcasting of the defendant’s advertisement in the Pepsi Co. v. Hindustan Coca-Cola Ltd. case, which involved Coca-parody commercial.
In some cases, like Whiley Eastern Ltd v. Indian Institute of Management, the court equated dealing under Section 52 with the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and held that its incorporation in the Copyright Act was essential to allow for the unrestricted pursuit of research, private study, criticism, reviews, or reporting of current events. Furthermore, the Patna High Court ruled in the case of Shri Ashwani Dhir v. The State of Bihar that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protected the rights of the makers of a TV program that made the state’s then-chief minister, Lalu Prasad Yadav, look like a funny man, and preventing the broadcast of such a program would violate the fundamental freedom of speech and expression.
Conclusion
There is no clear meaning or range for the term parody. Due to the very subjective nature of each situation, there are several potential hazards when interpreting the phrase legally. Nonetheless, parodies encourage innovation and the development of ideas, which is in keeping with the goal of the Copyright Act. As a result, the courts must find a balance between the author’s rights in his or her copyrighted works and the interests of society at large, including the basic right to free speech and expression.