Critical Response Essay Stage 2

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, as mentioned, 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, commenting on the original work, or a satire, using predefined elements to create an entirely unique work, on Fair Use laws.
Now, placing the Canterbury Tales 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 gray area is derived from the fact that the Canterbury Tales functions as both a parody, which may or may not infringe on current laws, as well as a satire. In terms of parody, the Canterbury Tales share very similar structure and plots with other preceding contemporary works. For instance the Decameron, by Boccaccio, follows, in third person, the woes and journey of a small group of pilgrims who are escaping the plague and find solace in sharing stories with one another. Chaucer’s work also follows a group of pilgrims who, though pursuing a different destination, decide to share tales in an attempt to pass a long journey. In this sense the Canterbury Tales may be considered as infringing material by modern law but the question arises as to whether or not the work truly acts as a parody. The work itself does not necessarily comment on the Decameron directly, 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 masses of the time. The Decameron, written in latin, would in fact have its commercial value diluted by the sheer availability of the Canterbury Tales to less educated readers. Additionally, the sheer similarity between the works is astounding enough to call to question the possibility of copyright infringement. 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 creative, though not entirely original, characters 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 defined as the letter of the 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 it is the existence of such questions that teach the reader about the nature of copyright law. Through examining the Canterbury Tales and taking into account the questionable nature of its composition, however the original purpose behind the work, multitude can be ascertained about the modern distinction between a satire and a parody. In Chaucer’s case, there seems to be no definitive answer, and like so many other contemporary cases, the result may be surprising. However it is this unclear, subjective nature that endows copyright law with a sense of interest and mystery. Through analysis of the Canterbury Tales, it is possible to learn that the distinction between parody and satire in the modern legal system isn’t always so distinct.

Citations:

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