Hey there:

If you're getting this, it's because you're one of the several folks who wrote me yesterday about my "This Month's WebParody" page. Given the date (April 1), I presume that most of you were merry pranksters (and not the frothing AltaVista representatives or aging Minnetonkans that you claimed). But, on the off chance that you were what you claimed, I present the following apologia:

The concise query of one commentator ("Your point?") raises many aesthetic and philosophic questions about the nature of parody. What is the point of any parody? Usually it involves the portrayal of something that evokes something familiar, but then adds unexpected content. It's sort of a step above a mere non-sequitur. The Supreme Court has approvingly quoted the definition of a parody as a "literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule." (Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, Inc. (1994)) The humor of the HastaLaVista parody (if I MUST dissect it for you) lies in the disparity between the visual similitude with AltaVista and the wildly different substance (while AltaVista searches millions of pages worldwide in fractions of a second, HastaLaVista searches a few magazines and cookbooks for several weeks and then forgets your question, and so on). Long story short, HastaVista wouldn't be so funny if AltaVista weren't so good.

In any event, as I note in the intro page, the point is (obviously) not to malign AltaVista (a page that we "all know and love"), or to suggest that AltaVista is, in fact, staffed by senile retired postal employees. Again, if that fact were even remotely true, the whole parody wouldn't be funny. Also, as I note at length in the intro page: "this is all meant to be good fun, and is provoked by no malice, ill-will, personal animus, commercial interest, etc. Indeed, the sites I parody are usually those that I use myself with great frequency. I'm not making any money from this," and so on.

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 106, et seq.) states that "the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright." And, as the Supreme Court has made clear "parody, like other comment or criticism, may claim fair use under § 107." (Luther R. Campbell aka Luke Skywalker, et al. v. Acuff Rose Music, Inc. (1994)). Of course, as you lawyers out there know, the fair use determination involves a weighing of four statutory factors, but in this case, there is no question that it applies, especially given that HastaLaVista is not "of a commercial nature" and has no effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work (people looking for "www.altavista.digital.com" are not in danger of accidentally stumbling upon "www.oocities.org/SunsetStrip/Alley/7028/hasta.htm"). If any of you has any legal doubts, take a gander at the Supreme Court's Campbell opinion and the authorities cited therein. Although, if you actually find yourself searching out the Campbell opinion for this purpose, odds are you need to lighten up.

Cheers,
Doug Anderson
ribeye@geocities