Only few countries have included into their copyright laws express exceptions in favour of parodies. And even where such an exception exists, it does not give carte blanche to all sorts of parodic use. On the other hand, also in countries without specific regulations concerning parodies, it is a generally accepted principle that they constitute a legitimate form of expression representing a category of art of its own. This means that the extent to which use can be made in a parody of elements of the protected work is somewhat broader than usual, as the purpose of the parody could not be fulfilled otherwise. In general, the crucial question is whether the extent to, and the manner in, which the parody makes use of the work is justified in view of its artistic purpose and the specific message it conveys. The scope of admissible use of a work which is granted to parodies on the basis of these principles may vary from country to country, depending, inter alia, on the importance attributed in the context to the moral rights of the author of the original on one hand and on the principle of free speech on the other .



In trademark law, the legal assessment of parodies takes a different point of departure. As was stated previously, the first questions to be examined in the context would be whether the parody is used (a) in commerce and (b) “as a mark“.


It was also mentioned before that the exact contents and scope of the latter criterion are somewhat unclear. Certainly, use of a parody will be considered as constituting trademark use when it is affixed to a product in the same manner as an ordinary device mark. Presumably, it would also be held as being used “as a mark“, when it is printed all over the front or back side of a T-shirt, although it is less likely in such a case that the ordinary buyer would believe that the parody is an indication of the commercial origin of the product to which it is applied. A different view – no use “as a mark“ – would probably prevail if the same parody would be published in the pages of a satirical magazine. Whereas this distinction may appear as pausible, it is hardly possible to point out exactly where the borderline between the two modes of uses must be drawn. What about parodies in a competitor’s advertising or on websites? What about postcards, stickers, calendars, posters etc.?