What, if anything can Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, teach us about the modern legal distinction between parody and satire?
In the modern legal system, the distinction between a satire and a parody are as follows: A parody is defined as the - often humorous - use of a song, play, or text which changes the actual content of the work to give farcical or ironic meaning to the original material. Alternatively, a satire is a literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. A parody, under most circumstances, is protected under modern copyright law, seeing as the parody in some way comments on the original work, while a satire is an original composition, though potentially stylistically similar to another, based on some vice or error. The distinction is written into the letter of modern copyright law, however there exist anomalies in the course of literature that provide insight into where the line is truly drawn between what can be considered a parody and what can be considered a satire; the most pronounced of these works is Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. What makes The Canterbury Tales such an important player in the argument as to what constitutes a parody, which is prosecutable by law, or a satire, which is not directly protected, is that The Canterbury Tales functions as both a parody and a satire, raising questions as to whether or not it would be easily prosecutable in the modern law system. Therefore, through keen observation, The Canterbury Tales provides that in the modern legal system, the definition of what constitutes a parody and a satire, and thus what is or isn’t prosecutable by law, isn’t always as black and white as the law itself assumes, seeing that The Canterbury Tales maintains the characteristics of both a parody and a satire, obscuring the seemingly objective nature of copyright law.
To further delve into the issue it is important to understand how the modern legal system assesses and distinguishes the issue of parodies and satire. Fair use, the underlying concept of copyright law, does not protect against satire, as a proper satire does not comment on the original work directly, but rather utilizes certain elements of an existing work to create an original, transformative work. However if a work constitutes a parody, and actually comments back on the original work, it is prosecutable by law. The three basic tenants of fair use law, according to So What… About Copyright?, that distinguish whether not a parody is or is not an infringement of Fair Use, and thus whether or not it functions as a satire, depends on whether:
1. It comments on the work.
2. It uses only as much of the original material as needed, without confusing the public or the consumer, or diluting the commercial value of the original.
3. Finally, it should not seek to replace the original in the market place.
Also, according to fair use law, a parody may avoid persecution if the work is “transformative,” differing enough from the original material as to be a distinguished entity. Additionally, though there exist guidelines, which, it should be noted are not actually written law, the issue of what is or isn’t a satire or parody is a case-by-case issue and is often complex in its nature (). Therefore the inherent value of these aforementioned guidelines, in the scope of this argument, is that it will provide a basic standard by which to assess whether or not something is a parody, because, as it will soon become obvious, the written copyright law is rarely as straight forward as it is written.
Now, observing Chaucer’s work in the frame of this argument, The Canterbury Tales is a perfect example of a work that makes the often clean-cut letter of the law unclear. This area of question is derived from the fact that The Canterbury Tales functions as both a parody, which may or may not infringe on current fair use laws, as well as a social satire. In terms of parody, The Canterbury Tales shares a very similar structure and over-arching plot with other preceding contemporary works. Most notable of all, The Decameron, finished by Giovanni Boccaccio in 1351, follows, in third-person, the stories and journey of a small group of pilgrims who are escaping the plague and find solace in sharing stories with one another in a quiet church sanctuary. Chaucer’s work also follows a group of pilgrims who, though pursuing a different destination with a different setting, decide to share tales in an attempt to pass a long journey. In this sense, The Canterbury Tales may be constituted as infringing material by modern law, seeing as it utilizes shares Boccaccio’s structure and basic premise, however, observing the work holistically, the question arises as to whether or not the work truly acts as a parody. Per the pre-designated guidelines, the work itself does not necessarily comment on The Decameron directly, utilizing a similar structure however implementing original characters, however it does, in essence, compete in the same market; The Canterbury Tales, unlike The Decameron was written and distributed in Middle English, making the work more accessible to the majority of the masses of the time. The Decameron, originally written in Italian, would in fact have its commercial value diluted by the sheer availability of The Canterbury Tales to readers who spoke the more common language throughout Europe at the time, English, and not Boccaccio’s vernacular. On the other hand though, the purpose of the Tales themselves is not to directly comment on Boccaccio’s work. The tales themselves, in execution, act as a satire, using a creative, though not entirely original, premise to comment on niches and divisions in society. This conundrum is what makes The Canterbury Tales an instrumental tool in asserting that the difference between a satire and a parody isn’t necessarily as clear as modern copyright law may make it seem to be.
So, what exactly is the Canterbury Tales? Is it a satire, or is it a parody? Is it both? If so, is it infringing on Boccaccio’s The Decameron? The questions themselves retain no immediately right or wrong answer and are up to the reader’s interpretation, however the existence of such questions indicate true the nature of copyright law. Even though there exists an evolving, written system of law to distinguish what is and isn’t prosecutable by law as copyright infringement, the Canterbury Tales provide an example of how satire and parody can be intertwined, calling for a subjective, fact-by-fact analysis. In Chaucer’s case, there seems to be no definitive answer, and like so many other contemporary cases, the result may come down to the slightest spin on the definition of satire and parody. However it is this unclear, subjective nature that endows copyright law with a sense of clarity, as it maintains its ability to follow through with the spirit of the law, as much as the letter. Thus, The Canterbury Tales indicate that modern laws definitions of what does and doesn’t infringe on copyright isn’t always so distinct, and often comes down to what the works aims to accomplish through its composition.
Citation:
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
Thomas Cooper's Recasting the Canterbury Tales (regarding points on whether or not Canterbury Tales is a social satire.)
No comments:
Post a Comment