Postmodern Cinema and Copyright Law: The Legal Difference Between Parody and Pastiche

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886 (amended on October 2, 1979), article 2, paragraph 1.

2. See Koumantos, Private International Law and the Berne.

3. Seville, The Internationalisation, 2.

4. Sterling, “International Codification of Copyright Law: Possibilities and Imperatives” in International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law.

5. Berne Convention.

6. Universal Copyright Convention.

7. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). WIPO Copyright Treaty.

8. European Parliament, Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

9. Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of Audiovisual Performances in Beijing on June 24, 2012.

10. Bimbaite, “When is a Parody a Violation of Copyright” in International Journal of Baltic Law.

11. Hemmings Kent and Kaufman, An Associate's Guide.

12. Copyright Act of 1976.

13. Litman, Digital Copyright, 17. See also Gauthier, “Fun and Profit: When Commercial Parodies Constitute Copyright or Trademark Infringement” in Pepperdine Law Review.

14. Bimbaite, When is a Parody, 19.

15. 17 U.S.C. § 102 (1982).

16. Wilson, Fair Use, Free Use and Use by Permission. How to Handle Copyrights in All Media, 6.

17. Belton, “Introduction: Film and Copyright” in Film History, 107.

18. 17 U.S.C. § 101.

19. Ibid, § 101.

20. Roggero, “Colourisation and the Right to Preserve the Integrity of a Film: A Comparative Study between Civil and Common Law” in Entertainment Law Review, 29.

21. 17 U.S.C. § 302. See also Aft and Renault, From Script to Screen: The Importance of Copyright in the Distribution of Films, 44.

22. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Registration for Motion Pictures, Including Video Recordings—Circular 45, 1.

23. Kurtz, “The Scope of Copyright Protection in the United States” in Entertainment Law Review, 89.

24. Harvard Law Review Association. “The Protection Afforded Literary and Cartoon Characters through Trademark, Unfair Competition and Copyright” in Harvard Law Review, 356.

25. See Petridis, “Comparative Issues on Copyright Protection for Films in the US and Greece” in Journal of Intellectual Property Rights.

26. Bimbaite, When is a Parody, 20.

27. Lombard & Geliebter, Copyright Infringement and Parody as Permissible Fair Use 2.

28. 17 U.S.C. § 107.

29. Ibid.

30. Lombard & Geliebter, Copyright Infringement and Parody, 2.

31. Ibid.

32. Bimbaite, When is a Parody, 16.

33. European Parliament, Directive 2001/29/EC, Article 5(3)(k).

34. Ramalho, “Parody in Trademarks and Copyright: Has Humour Gone Too Far?” in Cambridge Student Law Review, 59.

35. Meale and England, “Barry Trotter and the Infringement of Copyright—Parody Rules in the UK” in Managing Intellectual Property, 36.

36. Ibid, p. 23; also Constitution of the United States, Art. I, 8, cl.8.

37. Deazley, “Copyright and Parody: Taking Backward the Gowers Review?” in Modern Law Review, 789.

38. Phillips, Projected Fears, Horror Films and American Culture, 169.

39. Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, xxiv.

40. Phillips, Projected Fears, 170.

41. Hutcheon, The Politics of Postmodernism, 93.

42. Jameson, Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, 16.

43. Lemoine, Parody, Fair Use, Or Copyright Infringement?

44. Bimbaite, When is a Parody, 16.