Lucasfilms Nixes Star Wars Live Screening 298
An anonymous reader writes "The Seattle PI has an article about Lucasfilms sending a cease and desist letter to a local Seattle-based theater company. The company had been planning to do a live parody of Star Wars in which they would turn off the sound and redub it live. This brings up the question are parodies fair use? And if so, should copyright holders be allowed to order people not to parody their work?"
No surprises here.. (Score:5, Interesting)
It shouldn't be surprising that a group like this is going to get legal nastygrams for what they're trying to do here when you put that in context. Lucas Films isn't going to release any part of their movie to people who want to do parodies, if they want to do a real parody the right way they'd have to use their own video content. These people got used to using the real movie's video when they were only doing public domain movies, but they fail to understand that anything that came out after the introduction of Mickey Mouse won't be public domain until at least the 2010s, assuming the law isn't revised agian. Until that happens, copyright holders will have the power to shut down this type of "parody" as being not far enough removed from the original work to count.
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:5, Funny)
You go ahead and assume that, I'll play the lottery - I think I have better odds on that.
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:2, Insightful)
They should have been paying more attention on the quality of the movies themselves! As in story and acting and DIRECTING! Honestly people, Lucas is a hell of a producer, but he REALLY is bad as a director.
Just stick to producing there George...and also, don't worry about what others are parodying around with your movies. It's called "fair use". Also, it was a LIVE performance.
George is worried about h
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be, but at first glance it is a gray area. Not all parodies are fair use, live or not. Without knowing what the theater group has planned for his copyright work, he is justifiably skeptical. Granted it probably is fair use, but Lucas does not have the time to go around checking what every person with a parody is doing. Corporate lawyers have nothing to lose by being overly zealous. Win or lose, the individual lawyers will laugh all the way to the bank.
Unfortunately, once the attack dogs (a.k.a. lawyers) are on the scent, the situation turns ugly and expensive. Hopefully when the dust settles Lucas will get enough $100 bills to burn in his fireplace to keep him warm on his large estate, and the theater group will be free to perform their act under fair use provisions. Time will tell, probably once the new DVDs sell enough and Episode III is through with its theater run.
George is worried about his legacy...well, he's killed his legacy himself.
George needs to learn that money is not everything. Piss off your hardcore fans and suddenly you find yourself in a world of shit. With the Internet to unite fanboys worldwide, he could face organized boycotts, negative reviews, and negative word of mouth advertising. I, for one, hate the man. He had some great visions and great films, but he shows his true colors over and over: greed unfettered with respect for his loyal fans.
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the venue, any place where instruction is taking place is, at that point, a "similar place devoted to instruction".
The pupils and instructors are engaged in a face-to-face learning/training experience, the public gets to see the parody, and all profits go to furthering the experience.
So, as long as they have a legitimate copy, and adhere to the guidelines above, they can say to Lucas "My schwartz is more powerful than your schwartz."
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:4)
Well, no, I think a) you're misinterpreting that law a bit, and b) I don't see how it applies in this case to begin with.
Now, IANAL, but one thing I know is if it specifically says something in a law, then that's part of the law. You yourself bolded the words "nonprofit educational institution" in the law you cited - it can't just be a non-profit "organization" like the Red Cross or a public theater company, it has to specifically be an educational institution, in other words a public school. (Private schools are for-profit.)
Second, I don't see that there's any education going on here. This is a company called Jet City Improv, which seems to specifically do this for entertainment. Look at their web site [twistedflicks.com], there seems to be nothing educational about it. It's for entertainment.
So the law as you cited it is not relevant here.
Now, parody is generally protected under fair use laws. But part of what determines fair use is the extent of reproduction of the original copyrighted work. Simply showing a copyrighted work in its entirety and then making fun of it is not protected under fair use. Showing a copyrighted work in its entirety but replacing the soundtrack is a grey area to say the least - I couldn't predict how the legal chips would fall but it's probably not something I'd want to risk going to court over if I was Jet City Improv. There'd be a good chance they'd lose this one.
Woody Allen did the equivalent of what these guys are doing when he released What's Up Tiger Lily? He bought the rights to do that to that movie, even though it was a Japanese film, and even though the environment was much different in the 1960's. So that should tell you something. I don't think LucasFilm is really wrong in this case.
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:4, Informative)
Not all of them. Many are non-profit organizations which simply don't want to follow government regulations in certain areas (many religiously funded schools fall into this category).
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:3)
The only problem is that it's either legal to parody, and you can do it, and you can slap down Lucas for trying to stop this, or you agree with them, and all parodies have to stop, because they aren't fair use.
You can't exactly say all parodies have to be reviewed prior to, especially live parodies.
I'll go back to dreaming my country actually reinforces fair use to slap down the RIAA. Right now fair use is coming under attacks from basically all big-media cont
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:3, Insightful)
No there is a judgment that must be made as to whether something is fair use or not. For example, if I show the new Star Wars trilogy on a projector and charge admission, then I am violating the copyright, am I not?
Exactly -- although movie theaters are licensed to show movies. This theater is not, probably because they do parodies. Anyway, changing the sound is creating a derivative work, live or not. They are still showing the video and are doing so without permission. They really should have asked bef
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah! That's how we took down Microsoft!
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:3)
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:5, Funny)
don't worry about what others are parodying around with your movies.
No no no, Lucas owns copyright on parodies too. And the parodies in question are called "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones."
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was a kid, some mates and I refilmed the entire orginal trilogy in about two hours. It was tricky as I was both Vader and Skywalker and we only had one Storm Trooper so we kept stopping and starting the camcorder so that this one Storm Trooper could run in and get shot repeatedly. It also led to the immortal line, "That's not a moon, that's a football."
All of this utterly irrelevant however, unless any of my mates are reading. For me, the issue is not the legality or not, but the actual effects of the performance. First - does this harm the film company? Well, it's unlikely that people will go to see the theatre company's version instead of the original and I don't see how else it would harm their profits. And I doubt that it will be grossly defamatory to the people involved with Star Wars.
So why should anyone have the right to stop them? Yes they are profiting through it, the article says $10 a head. But it doe sn't cost Lucas anything. It's money out of nothing and it's creative. Everything new evolves from something that came befor e. To put a lock on anything that grows out of your work is to kill the whole line of it's artistic descendants.
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:3, Funny)
The true (and most frightening) question is "you did you dress up in the Leia slave costime?"
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:2)
Well, the line in the movie was "That's not a moon, that's a battlestation." So it's not that inside.
But I said it was irrelevant.
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:2)
I watched AToC the night it came out at a theater. During the first half-hour of the film, the dialog was unintelligible.
So I went to a second theater the next day. Again, the sound was distorted.
I filled out a complaint form on the
Parody. (Score:5, Informative)
It's a bummer, but there it is. They could make a parody movie of it (a la "Spaceballs") but they can't reproduce the content exactly, while over-dubbing, without getting permission.
Re:Parody. (Score:2)
Re:Parody. (Score:4, Insightful)
[Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer; these are just my personal understandings as a member of the public. I am an advocate of existing strong controls by copyright owners. I am also, however, a strong advocate of the existing special protections for the work of parody authors. I myself am an author of works of parody [anotherwayout.com] that would not be possible absent such protection.]
As I understand it, the "fair use" criteria are not hard and fast. Substantial resources [stanford.edu] are available on the web for helping to understand this complex issue.
There are four criteria [cornell.edu] used in judging fair use. Among them, the principal one in controversy here seems to be "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". The law doesn't say how the court is to address the amount and substantiality, just that it is to pay heed to it. What follows here is my own analysis of these issues.
First, and most obviously, by omitting the soundtrack, they are plainly taking only part of the work. This, it seems to me, is an acknowledgment of their need to not just rely on the power of the original piece in making their new work. (Note: I think there could exist situations where using the whole work might still be necessary to a proper public dialog through parody, but the case is easier to make when some parts have been omitted.)
Personally, I think the case for "fair use" in this case hinges on these issues: Are they using parody as a mere dodge for paying royalties on a movie they would just like to show for free? That is, are they negatively impacting the commercial stake of the movie? And secondarily, are they adding content which legitimately justifies the price they are charging on its own,or are they merely riding on the coat-tails of the movie to make money without adding any legitimate content of their own.
It seems to me very unlikely that a person who had never seen the movie would endure a parody session as a dodge for seeing it. It would be cheaper for them to just rent the DVD. Notwithstanding Lucas' desire that they not charge money, it seems to me that the fact that money is being willingly paid by attendees is a kind of proof that there is legitimate new content here. For far less, people could rent the DVD.
Additionally, and importantly, the work is not likely to appeal to anyone not having seen the movie. The movie would barely be intelligible to them. I'd bet that (to round numbers) everyone attending has seen (and paid for seeing) the movie several times. So I find it hard to imagine Lucas can make a case of losing money on this. If anything, the movie might create a desire on the part of attendees to go back and watch again to check on something, and that might generate new revenue for Lucas. So that seems a win/win, not an injury to Lucas.
Ironically, I further think that if Lucas made the materials routinely available for parody situations at an affordable cost, I might think they had more of a claim. It's the hard-line "you absolutely must not" stand that leads me to believe the courts should defend the individual rights of parody creators. Probably Lucas should just have a "parody-maker's price" for partial viewings,and then they'd have a new revenue source that people could tap into.
Further, if the work were not so ubiquitous as to make it likely that nearly everyone in the audience had paid at least once and probably many times to see the movie in some form already, one might be able to more easily make the claim that this was a dodge of the money-making version. But since the entire point rests upon the recognizability (presumably due to mu
Twisted Flicks (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.jetcityimprov.com/twistedflicks/ [jetcityimprov.com]
are they adding content which legitimately justifies the price they are charging on its own
They are. That's the whole idea of "Twisted Flicks".
They show the movie without sound, and they take suggestions from the audience. "Okay, I need the name of a place. Sedro Wooley. Okay, now I need a profession. Dressmaker." And so on.
Then improv comedy guys then
Re:Twisted Flicks (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, well, I'm just working with the limited info from the article.
I do agree that there is a fine but important line between "parody" and "fan fiction".
"Parody" is commentary on a particular story, and the latter is merely taking the stage of a particular item as a jump-off. "Fan fiction",
Re:No surprises here.. (Score:2)
So what? If something is advertised as being shown in full THX sound wouldn't you want to know that it actually was? That has nothing to do with a group showing a parody of Star Wars. Your example is a red herring.
Re:This is clearly protected (Score:2)
Um, I don't think so. I am not a lawyer, but if I read correctly, the original film (1977) might be in the public domain if published without notice (reference here [benedict.com] and here [unc.edu]) -- which seems extremely unlikely. And all the later movies would still be convered by copyright either way.
That sounds grea
Re:This is clearly protected (Score:5, Informative)
- A film seen by so many people becomes public domain as a result of having entered the cultural consciousness. The fact that is not legally secure only proves the absurdity of the USA copyright laws.
Damn. Where the hell did you learn about copyright law?
The US modified our copyright laws to conform to the Berne convention in 1976, thus making Lucas's Star Wars release in 1977 covered by the life-of-author+50 measure. So you're wrong on the first quoted claim.
The second quoted claim, that somehow over-use of copyright can erode it, is a misunderstanding. TRADEMARKS can be eroded to lose their legal meaning (i.e., Xerox), but copyrights cannot. Even if everyone on the entire planet has seen a work and can recite it from memory, the work is still protected by copyright until it expires.
Re:This is clearly protected (Score:3, Informative)
Good example: the "Happy Birthday" song, which is copyrighted [snopes.com]. That's why when somebody has a birthday at a restaurant, the employees have to sing their own dumb little song to embarrass the poor fool.
Re:This is clearly protected (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is clearly protected (Score:3, Interesting)
The book has been around for 40 years, and the author has been dead for 30. A fair case could be made that the purpose of copyright, to give authors a financial incentive to produce new works, is not being fulfilled by keeping it under copyright. Quite a similar story for Happy Birthday.
LoTR, the movies, on the other hand, are only three years old at the most and would still be under even the extremely short (by today's standards) terms of 14 years originally set down in the 1700s
Re:This is clearly protected (Score:5, Interesting)
You wont be able to find a 30 yeard-old print now. Impossible. And you can bet in 25 years, there will have been a few "improved" re-releases to further milk^H^H^H^H protect the SW franchises.
Not parody (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast number of Star Wars parodies that exist show that parodies are protected. What isn't protected is charging people $10 to see the movie and then talking over the whole thing.
From the article:
That is not an unreasonable demand.If you ask me it sounds like Lucas was protecting Seattle. If anyone should be suing, it's Best Brain.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not parody (Score:2)
Re:Not parody (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not parody (Score:2)
What about charging people $10 to see the movie with you talking over the whole thing and then talking over the whole thing?
Why isn't that protected?
Re:Not parody (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. This is a derivative work. Spaceballs is a parody. Given that though, as long as Lucasfilm is being paid the normal screening fees, I don't see what their problem is.
Re:Not parody (Score:2)
It's a damn shame that the "Dysfuncional Family Circus" case never went to trial. For those who are unfamiliar, the guy who ran the site would scan and post the picture of that sappy cartoon, then visitor would submit alternative captions, which would be sorted by a panel of moderators (all of whom had consistantly submitted funny captions before). In almost every case, the new captions were a lot more funny than Bil Keene's lame original.
Re:Not parody (Score:5, Insightful)
The real downside of this is that you can't really "sample parody" anything anymore without permission and the dollars to back it up. Either you create a whole new work with no samples like "Spaceballs" or you're kinda out of luck.
I saw the Star Wars one man show here in Chicago last year or so and he charged money, but he didnt use anything other than his body to do his act. So he was completely free to charge. In fact a lawsuit by lucas would have (all things being equal) been lost.
ALso, what does this mean for all the movieoke people out there? [movieoke.net] Sure, I doubt they'll crack down on it, but venue owners may not like them anymore after this.
Re:Not parody (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all the same thing. Translation means converting to a different expression of the same content. This theatre company is replacing the content with parody audio. Unless you have in mind some of the 'translations' of Hong Kong movies I've seen, but I always took those to be inadvertent rather than intentional parody.
Re:Not parody (Score:2)
Re:Not parody (Score:2)
No it's not. Copyright controls how a work is published: copied and sold. The legal hammer Lucas is wielding is trademark dilution. Also, probably any distributor has to sign some contract on how it is to be exhibited; that could say anything.
Re:Not parody (Score:2)
Copyright also controls how a work is performed. See Section 106, and note paragraph 5 [copyright.gov]:
106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other tr
Re:Not parody (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not parody (Score:3, Informative)
these clowns aren't paying anything.
Of course they want it stopped... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Of course they want it stopped... (Score:2)
Rocky Horror? (Score:5, Funny)
As long as they pay the same fee anyone else pays (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As long as they pay the same fee anyone else pa (Score:4, Informative)
LucasArts don't like parody (Score:5, Funny)
I do not think that word means what you think (Score:3, Funny)
YRO? What's online got to do with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The connection to online is just plain not there... either this story belongs in the main index section instead, or this section needs a new name.
Re:YRO? What's online got to do with this? (Score:2)
1) IPv6 is not going to last forever.
2) The internet is connected to the rest of the world.
That is, even though this doesn't directly affect the internet, in the long term it does, because if Lucasfilms can get away with this offline, they can get away with it online too.
Re:YRO? What's online got to do with this? (Score:2)
Re:YRO? What's online got to do with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hang on a moment... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but how the hell can this be the target of a C&D letter? Point (a) is up to whoever's showing the movie, and point (b) has no relation to the movie itself. Where does copyright law come into this at all?
Re:Hang on a moment... (Score:5, Informative)
It's a target of a C&D letter because they didn't get the rights to show the film in the first place. If they got the rights to do show it, then this would be a moot point.
It's not like a bunch of geeks dressed up as star wars characters were going on stage and doing the movie without the original lines, it was showing the movie a la MST3K which they need the rights to do so.
Re:Hang on a moment... (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot needs to stop sensationalizing it's headlines. They didn't get the rights to even show it in the first place. Of course they were going to get a C&D, parody has nothing to do with it.
Re:Hang on a moment... (Score:2)
Because anything can be the target of a "Cease and Desist" letter. They are just something a lawyer produces saying "stop doing what you're doing - we don't like it". It has no actual legal standing, other than notifying you that, if you don't stop, they will sue.
Nice contrast (Score:2, Insightful)
Yesterday we had the CNN story with Mark Hamill telling people not to take SW too seriusly and now Lucas does exactly the opposite. Way to go dude, keep pissing off your customers and fans.
Turbo Smorgreff [www.des.no]
Re:Nice contrast (Score:2)
Besides
didn't work for the Woody Guthry song (Score:3, Interesting)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/25
I realize there's a legal difference between parody and satire and that this case was over a lapsed copyrighted work.
This still sounds like a great opportunity for litegation against LucasFilms over fair use.
Re:didn't work for the Woody Guthry song (Score:2)
FBI WARNING: Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes or video discs. Etc...
Parody? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, this makes Lucas look like an enormous ass. But, oh, wait, that's long since been established. We already know that Lucas likes to tell Star Wars fans where they can shove their opinions, so he's not really losing anyone's respect here. If Episode II didn't piss you off, Episode I did... if it wasn't the prequels, it was the remastering or the remastering of the remastering...
But I digress.
This brings up the question are parodies fair use? And if so, should copyright holders be allowed to order people not to parody their work?
No--this brings up the question, "What constitutes a parody?"
There's a lot of precedent for parodies being protected under fair use. And certainly, copyright holders should not be allowed to order people around with regard to parodies.
I think the real issue here is, the parody in question employs a public screening of Lucas' films. It would clearly be a protected parody if the movie were re-shot or acted out live. But actually putting on a public screening of the film--even with sound replaced--is not quite so clear cut a situation.
Maybe we'll get lucky and this will go to court and we'll get a favorable ruling. But it probably won't make it so far.
Here's proof. [gearlive.com] Free 27" flatscreen TVs. [freeflatscreens.com]
All part of the plan... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, they're getting some press alright.
ILL Clinton - Maker of Machinima Movies [illclan.com]
parodies (Score:2)
Seriously, Mr. Lucas, please put down the bullhorn and step away from the camera. Start writing children's books or something, but on behalf of myself and others, I urge you to back away from the franchise and let it die a natural death. There's no sense running it over a cliff.
Re:parodies (Score:2)
There's no sense running it over a cliff"
You must be new here...
ROFL... point taken.
Weird Al (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Weird Al (Score:2)
Re:Weird Al (Score:2)
From what I have read right here on
Re:Weird Al (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, Al does NOT have to ask permission, any more than the morning shock jocks who do parody songs have to ask permission. He just has to pay the copyright fee necessary to record the original song. Al asks permission because Al is a really nice guy. (Horrible shame about what happened to his parents.)
Re:Weird Al (Score:2)
Re:Weird Al (Score:2)
Just Like Star Drek (Score:5, Interesting)
Parody Yes. Satire No. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Sunday Morning Fog is still hovering over my brain, but I seem to recall that the law makes a distinction between Parody and Satire.
Parody (in which an artist is commenting on the work itself ) is protected as Fair Use, while Satire ( where an artist is merely using the work as a tool to comment on something else entirely) is not.
So, as always, the devil is in the details. And whether this Mashup is considered Parody or Satire would depend entirely on the content of the derived work.
-Sean
This isn't parody (Score:3, Interesting)
Send me one too. (Score:2)
Can I have my cease and desist Mr. Lucas?
Re:Send me one too. (Score:2)
Not until you start offering copies of those tapes for sale.
Parodies (Score:4, Interesting)
Among the very few things that are explictly proctected under fair use is parodies.
I know that there's a lot of RTFA going around, but how can people with exposure to the issues multiple times a week even ask such a question, unless:
1. It's obvious flamebait.
2. Nobody RTFAs or even bothers to understand the laws they are talking about.
Not that copyright law is great, but really, why question if it protects parody when the law explicitly states that copyright does not prevent reuse of the material in the case of parodies.
Re:Parodies (Score:3, Informative)
actually, they don't have the right (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe it was over a weird-al song -- Amish Paradise if I recall correctly. If it goes to the courts, it should be a pretty straightfoward case.
As long as these people CAN convince the judge that what they are doing is a parody, LucasFilm doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Re:actually, they don't have the right (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong.
Why?
Imagine this. I decide I want to sell Star Wars bootleg videos in the street. So I break out DVDAuthor and superimpose MST3K-ish "parody" subtitles onto the movie. Now, according to you, I can go ahead and distribute my "parody" SW version with impunity?
Fair use [wikipedia.org] doesn't work that way. Just because something's a parody, doesn't automatically make it fair use. In every case, the rights of the defendant must be weighed against those of the plaintiff, and except in very clear cut circumstances, the plaintiff has the upper hand because fair use is an affirmative defense -- you must prove that it applies to your infringement, not just assert it.
Lower the volume instead of muting it! (Score:2, Interesting)
stop the madness (Score:2)
One Way to Get this Issue Across (Score:2, Interesting)
License cost? (Score:2)
That's a curious thing about a lot of these copyright cases, a license is never presented as an option, it's always just "stop!" If someone is managing to make money from someone else's material, surely it would be more profitable to both parties to actually license it, rather than pay the horde of lawyers to make sure there is no revenue s
Troll! (Score:2)
No Respect. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No Respect. (Score:2)
Re: Android or droid? (Score:4, Informative)
The word "droid", on the other hand, was introduced by Lucas/Alan Dean Foster in the first Star Wars movie. Knowing about all the merchandising that resulted from Star Wars, it's not hard to believe that Lucas trademarked it.
Based on my (somewhat limited) knowledge of copyright and trademark law, he's within his right to ask for damages in the case of "droid" if the word is trademarked. Also, I believe you may use the word "android" all day if you want.
Cheers,
E
Re:No Respect. (Score:3, Informative)
Why is this considered news? (Score:2)
This is why i no longer give them any of my money. No need to add to their pocketbooks, just to help them sue me later.
But is it parody ? (Score:2)
One Man Star Wars Parody Allowed (Score:3, Interesting)
Or to just see a video clip is here: http://www.onemanstarwars.com/OMSWDemo.WMV [onemanstarwars.com]
Lucasfilms most definately knows about him as he was flown down as their guest for one of the recent conventions. He will also be performing at the big Celebration III for the new movie.
The same guy also does the One Man Lord of The Rings which is also incredible.
What the laws say (Score:4, Informative)
Even more basic is the fact that you also can't SHOW a copyrighted film in a theater without a contract from the copyright holder. Let alone sell tickets.
You can't take a copyrighted anything and modify it without the permission of the copyright holder.
Under the Compulsory License provision for audio recordings, You CAN take a copyrighted and commercially released song recording and make your own original recording of the melody and arrangement with parody lyrics (a la Weird Al Yankovic)as long as you pay the compulsory license fee to the copyright holder. The copyright holder CANNOT deny you permission to do this. But under this arrangement you can't sample any of the actual audio from the actual original.
If you want to sample actual audio from the original, you can't do it unless you get contractural permission from the copyright holder--and that usually involves licensing and money.
But rights for film, theater and television are called "grand rights" and are different than rights for songs and audio recordings.
The point here is that this theater wanted to use George Lucas' actual film (which is copyrighted) and change the soundtrack. They might have been able to create their own original film, without using any footage or images from the real Star Wars. But what they were trying to do here is clearly a no-go, legally.
A couple of years ago, as reported here on Slashdot, a company wanted to release DVDs of movies like "Titanic" with the nudity hidden, by digitally painting clothing over the nude actors. They wanted to pay the licensing fees to the copyright holders and sell the DVDs to people who were offended by R-rated movies but would be willing to buy them if the reasons for the "R" were removed. The copyright holders, including the film company that produced "Titanic" rightly stepped in and prevented this from happening.
If you create a work of art and you copyright it, you have the absolute right to control the way that this art is seen in public, and to protect yourself from having what you created altered in any way that doesn't suit you.
The "parody" question comes into play when somebody makes a piece of art that is 100% their own creation which parodies an existing work of art (Mel Brooks' movie "Spaceballs," which is a parody of "Star Wars"). But that is clearly not what the theater in question was wanting to do.
So, no, modifying copyrighted material for parody is not fair use. The laws defining the concept of "fair use" don't mention parody at all.
Fair Use? Not really such a thing anymore... (Score:3, Insightful)
--Lawrence Lessig in Free Culture [free-culture.org]
Re: ya know... (Score:5, Funny)
> I clicked the little checkbox that is supposed to prevent me from seeing all this Star Wars trivia. Why am I still seeing these stories?
This is not the trivia you are looking for.
Re:ya know... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:guilty until proven innocent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protect Intellectual Property (Score:2)
Re:What about Spaceballs? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a Spaceballs parody.
After all, Spaceballs is MUCH more entertaining, whereas Star Wars is ...
But, as Lone Star said, "We're not doing it for the money, Barf, we're doing it for a SHITLOAD of money!" Sums up the Star Wars franchise (and this mean-spirited action).