Although Weird Al does parodies and not straight covers, same laws apply.
My understanding has always been that satire is fair use but because there could be some grey area there, and because weird al is a decent guy, he always sought permission. I seem to recall the coolio incident being a misunderstanding.
Correct. It was a misunderstanding. From what I remember someone from Al’s label said he had the go ahead from Coolio to do the parody. Only after it was released did Coolio make public statements about it, and Al tried to apologize but I don’t think Coolio was having it.
I don’t know how copyright law applies to satire but in my head, a parody of a song uses enough of the original material that you’d still need permission.
Not necessarily. Parody allows for a “percentage changed vs original work” when deciding whether copyright was infringed. Al was always perfectly within his rights to do the parody, but he’s a stand up guy and tries never to do a song that the original artist didn’t approve.
My understanding has always been that satire is fair use but because there could be some grey area there, and because weird al is a decent guy, he always sought permission. I seem to recall the coolio incident being a misunderstanding.
Correct. It was a misunderstanding. From what I remember someone from Al’s label said he had the go ahead from Coolio to do the parody. Only after it was released did Coolio make public statements about it, and Al tried to apologize but I don’t think Coolio was having it.
I don’t know how copyright law applies to satire but in my head, a parody of a song uses enough of the original material that you’d still need permission.
So he had to pay royalties to Stevie Wonder?
Not necessarily. Parody allows for a “percentage changed vs original work” when deciding whether copyright was infringed. Al was always perfectly within his rights to do the parody, but he’s a stand up guy and tries never to do a song that the original artist didn’t approve.