Parody vs. Satire
Parody and Satire are terms which are often used interchangeably. There is a grey area between the two, often blurred and thus the terms are often mistaken for each other. A parody, according to So What . .. About Copyright? What Artists Need to Know About Copyright and Trademarks , generally imitates or mimics a style or look, while a satire is often a humorous or political critique of a vice or error. The main difference between the two is that parodies are protected under the copyright law, more specifically the law of fair use, while satires are not.
So what exactly is the fine line between a parody versus a satire? They both generally but need not, whether directly or otherwise, make use of humor and they both serve for entertainment purposes. However, parodies are used solely for entertainment purposes whereas satires use the humor somewhat obviously to convey a message. Also, parodies, due to their nature, comment on the original works that they mimic, in other words they give credit to the original works that they make fun of within the context of their humor. In relation to the law of fair use, which states that “to be original, a work must contain a grain of creativity”, we can see that parodies, although using the ideas and themes of an original work, alter the original work for the sake of humor as well as commenting on the original work within the humor; they do not detract from the original work. Satires, however, simply branch off of the original works for their own political or critiquing purposes, without commenting or giving credit to the original works and so can be viewed as a form of plagiarism. Moreover, parodies are usually about or usually make a play on fictional circumstances or characters, whilst satires deal with non-fictional material.
In the context of the Canterbury Tales, we can see that the Tales was a satire of Medieval English society, a critique of the cross section of society of the day. However, because his commentaries and ideas were disguised so well under the pretence of humor, that is they were not completely apparent, he was able to play his work off as a parody. Another reason why the Tales could be seen as a parody instead of a satire was that the Tales were written completely in Middle English. Even though some of the source material for the Tales was also written in English, some were also written in Latin and so Chaucer’s choice to translate the Latin to write in English would also lend some semblance of originality to the Tales and not as a complete replicate.
So...
1) Do you think satires should also be protected as parodies are and why? And if not, do you think parodies should have the protection that they do?
2) What are some contemporary examples of parody/satire? Be sure to specify which one.
3) Who should decide whether something should be satire or parody?
4) How has the role of the Canterbury Tales as a parody/satire changed over time?
Citations:
Litman, Jessica, Kay Murray, and. Christine Steiner. “What Every Artist Should Know About Copyright and Trademark Law.” So What . . . About Copyright? What Artists Need to Know About Copyright and Trademarks. Ed. David Bollier et al. Public Knowledge, 2005. 11-47. http://www.crt.louisiana.gov/culturalassets//images/howto/so-what-about-copyright.pdf
Webster's Online Dictionary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I think of satire, the first thing that comes to mind is late night stand up comedy. Comedians (like Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien, David Letterman, etc.) basically take things that have happened and exaggeratedly express their opinion about those things. Last night (Tuesday Feb. 9, 2010), David Letterman stood up and made fun of Sarah Palin for having notes written on her hands during a conference. This example of satire is a pretty good example of when satire really just represents the way that some people think. Some people may think that it is very unprofessional to have your cue cards on your hand during a convention. The satire just represents an opinion on a situation or story. For this reason, I do not think that satires should be regulated the way parodies are by law. Is the government to tell one person that they can’t think a certain way just because someone else has that same opinion?
ReplyDeleteHowever, when I think of parodies, I think of a resetting or recasting of the same exact thing. Since it is not right to steal someone’s invention/idea and put your name on it (even though Chaucer did), parodies should be regulated so that the original author keeps his or her copyright to the product.
In the case of The Canterbury Tales, the satire and some parodies have lost their meaning over time, because people do not act, think, or read what people in the 13-14th centuries did. First of all, the social structure of today’s times is entirely different. Just because a woman is a woman, she is not forced to obey men. A lot of society’s rules (both legally and socially) have changed. Therefore, the impact that a character’s action had before is much different than now. People are not as appalled at the Wife of Bath’s tale, because there are many women that are like her today. Back then, the satire would have really stirred the pot so to speak among readers. The parodies of the Confessio Armantus and Gower are also not obvious to today’s readers, because people today do not typically read these older texts. However, the educated people in Chaucer’s time would probably have noticed the similarities.
Satires and parodies should be protected in the same way. As long as a piece of work requires originality and creativity from its author, it is considered his or her own work, regardless of what it is based upon. It may not receive as much acknowledgement from the general public as an original piece, but it is still a separate piece of work.
ReplyDeleteAn example of a parody that immediately comes to my mind is Family Guy Star Wars. It certainly takes creativity to think of clever ways to poke fun at Star Wars. While the story, even every scene, almost exactly mimics the scenes in Star Wars, the creators of Family Guy are able to add their own clever, orginal twist to it and make it entertaining.
A very famous satire and one of my favorite TV shows would be The Simpsons. The Simpsons basically satirizes everything there is to satirize, from politics to the economy to American society to the rest of the world. However, The Simpsons is a satirical TV show that is in fact protected by Copyright.
No person or group of people should have the right to declare if something is a satire or parody. The definitions of a satire and parody are already set, but when if a work is ever lies within the grey area of satires and parodies, it should be up to the general public to decide. After all, it is the public who watch and consume these products.
I would say that the Canterbury Tales was and still is a satire of 13th century English society. It does possess some characteristics of a parody, but it is definately does not make fun of any original piece of work. The fact that society has changed over time does not mean the target society of Chaucer's satire has changed as well.
Satires and parodies are two very different things. When I think satire, I do not tend to associate it with plagiarism because a person's opinion is tagged along with it. Some personal input had to be added for it to become an object of comedy. I would think the same for a parody. Ultimately, I believe that both should be protected in the same way. I believe what distinguishes an original work and a plagiaristic work is the degree of thought put into it. I would personally define plagiarism as discretely copying someone else's work. Satires usually add some sort of comedic twist and strictly are meant to poke fun at a specific theme. A satire is not copying someone else's work as much as shining it in a different light.
ReplyDeleteA contemporary example of a parody are certain movies like Romeo and Juliet (1996), in which similar themes and characters are placed in a new time period. Likewise a contemporary example of satire would be the TV show South Park, which basically satirizes everything in society, making fun of people, events and situations in an often crude but hysterical way. I would not consider South Park plagiarism, for new characters are created to experience the events of society and a new level of thought is added to each event. For example, cash is by no means a cure for AIDS, but AIDS is a contemporary medical issue.
All in all, the only person/people that should have to decide whether a specific work is satire or parody are the people creating it. There should be no issue with either idea, thus people should be willing to accept the type, parody or satire, that they are watching, reading, hearing etc.
Lastly, in regards to the Canterbury Tales, I don't think the issue of whether Chaucer plagiarized certain themes came up until recently. I think that the Canterbury Tales is a satire of society in the Middle Ages. Chaucer obviously takes great liberties in poking fun at many of the typical classes of people. However, is he copying someone else when several of his stories are parallel with the works of others? I don't think so. He has change them around, and also I think that many of those stories may have been well-known. What if Chaucer was just incorporating well-known tales as if these pilgrims would have told a story everyone knew.
In many ways, the difference between parody and satire is a matter of semantics. The laws regarding the two are very ironic in my opinion. Parodies often follow the same format as their source, with parallels in plot, characters, setting, and other significant factors. Nevertheless, parodies are protected under the law. On the other hand, satires tend to incorporate the central abstract themes from their sources, and sometimes make vague references or slight allusions to their sources. However, satires are afforded less protection than their counterparts, parodies.
ReplyDeleteThere should not be such a distinction made between parodies and satires. Moreover, both should be protected by laws, as neither is inherently malicious in terms of intent. Furthermore, to persecute for satire is to deny First Amendment rights.
When I think parody, I think of spin movies like Spaceballs, a movie which mimics the well-known perceptions of the famous Star Wars saga and turns it all into a big joke. Within this parody, there are also several elements of what is considered satire where some poignant political or cultural commentary is made.
When I think satire, I think of South Park in all its incarnations. Although it frequently utilizes shock humor and immature jokes, South Park consistently conveys a valid message which oftentimes presents a viewpoint a viewer may have not considered previously. Interestingly, one way this is achieved is through parody of either real or fictional things. Also, South Park even satirizes itself at times, perhaps for sanity's sake.
Both of these examples demonstrate the cloudy nature of the delineation between parody and satire. It doesn't matter who chooses the definition of each; regardless, it's not fair to classify one way or the other, especially if protection under the law or First Amendment rights are at stake.
As far as copyrights go, I think that both satire and parodies should be protected by law. If anything, I think that satires are more creative and original than any parody as satires have their own meaning while parodies are usually just for entertainment purposes. They both require originality to create and while some sort of credit maybe due to the original work, both satire and parodies are their own work and should be treated as such.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think parody, I also think of such things as Space Balls (Star Wars) and Monty Python and the Holy Grail (King Arther). A satire, on the other hand, remind me of such things as the Onion. I remember one of my favorite Lit assignments in high school about a shoe that could heal broken legs and such just by wearing them. It was a satire on sales advertisements and how much bull they are.
The role of the Canterbury Tales as a satire has diminished over the many years. Social norms that may have been prevalent in his times are not as important now. For this reason, many of the points he is making lose their power.
I believe satires require the permission of the original author for distributing purposes. Although the original work is being mocked in some way, the plot or story are too similar for the original author to not get offended that his work has been replicated. As for parodies, these are more as criticism of the original work. If the author of the parody states his source, or focus of criticism, then it is okay because the author is demonstrating what he or she interpreted from the original reading.
ReplyDeleteParodies and satires can be found on any entertainment channel, for example, The Simpson's Haloween episode made a parody of Edgar Alan Poe's The Raven poem, and familiy satires sosiety in nearly every way, as in hilarious hints of Stewie's homosexuality.
If the author of the "copied" work cannot decide then a scholarly committee should decide, but it the line is very thin because arguments can be so opinionated.
The Canterbury Tales poking fun of society as well as other works in a way inspired how writers today are able to do just he same. The few writers who do make society aware of their flaw usually portray the message through a median that is well known, such as in a well watched comedy show.
Parodies provide a form of entertainment, and are means for a person to express their views. The current laws on parodies provide for a broad interpretation of the copyright infringement law. More importantly the law allows for a decision to be made per basis. Therefore depending on the case depends if you break the copyright infringement. Therefore a parody used in the right sense may not please the owner of the copyright but they follow the strict guidelines so that the parody does not infringe on the owner of the original copyright. The thing about satires is that the original work is adapted and then changed but no credit is given to the original owner. Therefore it can be considered plagiarism. That is why I agree with the law on not protecting satires form copyright infringement, because the idea is not in the sense"citied" towards the original owner.
ReplyDeleteSome contemporary examples of parody are Saturday Night Live, where they take material copyrighted and then change it and incorporate it for humor into their show. I feel the people who should decide if something is a satire or a parody in a court of la. If the owner oft he copyright does not feel that they have a legal case to sue then the question need not arise who should decide, the producer of the work decides what to call it. But if the case comes under the court of law, then it is up to a judge to decide and way the evidence to deem what the work is a parody or a satire and to determine if their is copyright infringement.
The role of the canterbury tales and a parody/satire has changed over time, because it becomes to look like an original work, as more tie passes between when the original work was published and the present date. Chaucer's writing is considered a classic literature novel, yet it is not so obvious to the modern day reader the humor or the stories. Research is needed to be done to find out the source material for the Canterbury tales. Therefore the books role as a parody and satire is less noticeable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that satires should be protected just as much as parodies. If the only standard for a parody's originality comes from the work containing "a grain of creativity", then satires definitely meet this criteria. I like this standard because in case of dispute it is up to the courts to decide whether or not the creative swing is present. This allows for variance from case to case which I think is necessary. It is the courts decision to decide whether something is a parody or satire because in the end they too will determine whether rights have been infringed.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of parodies the first thing that comes to my mind is the recent string of knock off compilation movies (ie: Scary Movie, Epic Movie). Satire can be found in SNL skits and the Onion. I believe that The Canterbury Tales has always been a satire. Even though Chaucer's views are disguised in his writing he is definitely exaggerating and promoting certain viewpoints. The Canterbury Tales is humorous but also has political undertones about estates and other domestic issues.
I think satires should be protected under law just as parodies are. Theres is very little difference between the two and both require enough creativity to make sure that they are an original work. As long as the parodies give credit to the original authors, I believe they should be protected.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of parodies, I think of shows like Robot Chicken which just shows parodies of popular topics and Family Guy which contains segments where they make fun of a popular reference.
I don't think anyone should be deciding if there is a difference because they should both be protected, but there should be a committee that decides whether or not it is plagiarism.
I don't believe that the Canterbury Tales is relevant anymore today because of the drastic differences in today's society and the one Chaucer wrote about. There is enough other material that is more relevant today that authors can use in place of the Canterbury Tales.
I think satires should receive the same protection as parodies. The law claims to protect any work that has any grain of creativity. A satire, although it uses many of the same elements, changes different aspects of the work to make a point. Creativity implies asserting a new idea; furthermore, changing a different aspect of a piece of work is a new idea. In some ways I feel a satire is just as creative as a parody. Both a parody and a satire are used for entertainment purposes, yet a satire also conveys a different message than the original work. Portraying a new message, in my view, is definitely a "grain" of creativity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel that a satire can be disguised as a parody. For example, the book Pride Prejudice and Zombies is the same book as Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin except for the fact that zombie jargon replaces certain words in the text. Pride Prejudice and Zombies is considered a parody. These replacements of words is for entertainment use only, yet I wonder if these zombie terms have an alternative meaning (not that I believe they do). What if the zombie jargon somehow critiques the American system incognito? Would this book then be considered a satire? So even though satires do not receive the same protection, I believe the protection of satires and parodies relates closely to distinguishing one from the other.
I do not think satires need to be protected under Copyright Law. First off, many satires imitate a person, rather than a work itself. Thus, it technically isn't a quantifiable offense, as you cannot "copy the text" of a person, or steal the idea of a person. Also, satires are often far enough from there original context to no longer really be recognized, except by the witty few, as the original. In terms of contemporary examples, Saturday Night Live sticks out in my mind the. The show itself feature several satires of politicians. However I don't think they should be sued every time somebody imitates a politician.
ReplyDeleteIf satire is someone's opinion about something on it's own, and parodies are someone's opinion projected onto another work, then obviously satire doesn't need copyright protection and parodies do. Parodies, as i understand it from your paragraphs, are basically an official reworking of someone else's work except adapted in comedy or to express opinion.
ReplyDeleteSatire, however, seems to me to be just the act of opinionated response and until opinions are deemed copyright material, we shouldn't need that protection. However, when that opinion is expressed as a semi-original work ("of art" to use the expression) as parody that could in turn be used for satire, then the protection is needed.
::its hard to talk about this without seeming redundant lol::
My only problem with this almost bipartisan system of protection is translation, and here I don't understand the nuances. To me, and what we've been saying in class, is that works that are translated aren't plagiarism. Well my question is, if I wanted to translate Twilight into Swahili and make a fortune off African teenage girls on the shoulders of that ridiculous franchise, what is stopping me?
I think satires should not have the same protection as parodies. Parodies specifically use another source, and must acknowledge that source. Satires do not acknowledge the source, and therefore can be misused fairly easily in order to steal another's idea. If a satire has enough originality to not be stealing an idea, then it is already protected under the definition of originality “to be original, a work must contain a grain of creativity”. This is why satires are generally done about non-fiction material. You cannot steal an idea that is already in the public domain. Shows that satirize current events and such are not in violation of the laws. The laws already allow for plenty of satire, so they do not need to be stretched any further.
ReplyDeleteAs for parodies, the protection they receive allows for shows like Saturday Night Live to make fun of things without getting sued. It is an excellent way of poking fun at something while still giving it credit. If you give the person who came up with the idea credit for having that idea, there's no reason you can't talk about that idea, or even make fun of it through parody. Overall I'd say the current laws sufficiently meet the needs of parodies and satires.
Yes I think satires should also be protected as parodies are due to the fact the author is only branching off the original works and including many of his/her own ideas. The author's ideas should be protected like parodies are protected, especially since parodies are "mimicking" the original works which are most likely also already protected.
ReplyDeleteSome modern satires are The Simpsons and Family Guy. Some modern parodies are Scary Movie, Date Movie, Epic Movie, etc.
A committee who gives out and approves whether something is copyrighted or not should decide whether something should be a satire or parody
The role of the Canterbury Tales as a parody/satire has changed over time by becoming more of an original and classic writing that is still considered a satire.
Parodies and Satires are both works of art that play off of an original work of art. They develop a new work of art that contains elements from an original work of art in order to argue a new point or to develop a new twist. Oftentimes this is a feel that could not be created without being played off of another work of art. No one says anything when people write comparative stories to the bible. And, if you drew a picture of a deer being hunted by a guy with a spear no one would accuse you of copying off of the ideas in cave paintings. The issue of copying off of something that has legal protection is supposed to be put into place so that people will not 'steal' ideas and sell them as their own, but what about people who have original ideas that are developed as a response or a play off of the original work of art that is an idea that they should be able to sell themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that parodies and satires are both works art that someone developed. It's not fair to say that some people have the right to publish their own work of art, but others don't.
Yes, parodies and satires should have the same kind of protection. Although they both incorporate ideas already set forth by someone else, the ideas are manipulated so as not to plagiarize. There are some satires that aren't particularly based on a body of work. Jonathan Swift wrote a satire called A Modest Proposal that mocked the British authorities' actions in order to promote change. So, for a satire to come about, a body of work doesn't necessarily have to be analyzed and tweaked.
ReplyDeleteThey set forth a new body of work. If the person writing this satire or parody were to copy directly without inserting their own ideas and thoughts, yes, that would be considered plagiarism. But in most parodies, the author specifically changes some major parts to get their point across. Satire takes an idea, an action, a work of art and pokes fun in order to promote change.
Who is to say that someone can write one idea down, but someone can't have an opinion and respond to that idea?