This is ridiculous. There is no exclusion principle.
A copyrighted work is protected. You are not permitted to use a work unless the person who controls the copyright says so.
You want to know about the "policies of songs used in a parody."
Think before you type. Copyright covers
USE. All of it.
Parody is a use. You're looking for a special sub-case when the general case already is disqualified.
Suppose there were a "policy" explicitly forbidding "use in a parody." Would you then ask us: "but what if the parody is for use on a cell phone? What if I cover my ears while playing the parody?"
The use is already illegal, and no amount of additional sub-conditions changes that.
As already explained above, "fair use" is NOT permission to use a work. "Fair Use" is a defense. You get arrested, taken to court, and you are found guilty of using the work. You *might*, however, be forgiven and not have to pay a sentence because you "broke the law for a good reason" (fair use). And just to be clear, "fair use" isn't an internationally accepted defense. In other words you are always
not permitted, and
not all countries have "defensive" terms to exonerate you.
You want specifics? Fine, but you can't ask for the specific law and then summarily dismiss it as too confusing. Here's the definition of
stuff that's explicitly protected under the terms of the Berne Convention, which is the most widely adopted international set of copyright terms.
The minimum standards of protection relate to the works and rights to be protected, and to the duration of protection:
(a) As to works, protection must include "every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever the mode or form of its expression" (Article 2(1) of the Convention).
(b) Subject to certain allowed reservations, limitations or exceptions, the following are among the rights that must be recognized as exclusive rights of authorization:
- the right to translate,
- the right to make adaptations and arrangements of the work,
- the right to perform in public dramatic, dramatico-musical and musical works,
- the right to recite literary works in public,
- the right to communicate to the public the performance of such works,
- the right to broadcast (with the possibility that a Contracting State may provide for a mere right to equitable remuneration instead of a right of authorization),
- the right to make reproductions in any manner or form (with the possibility that a Contracting State may permit, in certain special cases, reproduction without authorization, provided that the reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author; and the possibility that a Contracting State may provide, in the case of sound recordings of musical works, for a right to equitable remuneration),
- the right to use the work as a basis for an audiovisual work, and the right to reproduce, distribute, perform in public or communicate to the public that audiovisual work
Do you see the phrase "exclusive rights of authorization"?
That means "only when permission is given by the person who owns it.
If you want to do any of the things above, without permission from the copyright holder, you have violated copyright in 176 countries.
Do you want to see the entire text of applicable exceptions to the above rules? They are laughably short:
Article 9 said:
(1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.
(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
(3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.
Article 9, section 2: Each of the governments of the 176 signatories to the Berne Convention may determine case-by-case exceptions as long as the exceptions do not prejudice the interests of the author. I don't suppose that your friend is a government of a nation, by any chance?
It is the case, as I and others have mentioned, that some nations have added "legally defensible positions" to their national copyright laws, as section 2 permits. Your friend may have heard that 8 bars in a song is ok--I've heard the same kind of lunacy in the college where I work and teach. Some of our faculty believe that "10% of a movie" is acceptable and other outrageous nonsense. There's a case in New York where a newspaper book reviewer was successfully sued for using 1 single sentence from a 1000 page novel in his book review.
You can totally see, though, how myths like the "8 bars" that your friend told you came to exist. Part of the definition of "fair use" stipulates that you can be cleared of guilt if you only used a little bit of the work. Some people like to grab this 1 part of the policy and to run away with it. And you will definitely find cases where people have used 8 bars of a song or 10% of a movie or 1 sentence from a book and have gotten away with it due to "fair use." As a result, people take the one example they heard about and assume that it's the rule.
But I'm going to tell you the rule:
Title 17, section 107 U.S. Code:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I'm going to get ahead of you on this, OP, because I think I sense you starting to type "I'm ok, then because of Number 1."
You're not. In every case in which Fair Use is used as a defense,
every single one of these 4 questions is applied by the court. If you fulfill 1 condition for fair use, then it's game over for you. You have to qualify on all 4, every time, or it's not Fair Use.
And here's the most difficult part, thanks to Article 9 of the Berne Convention. Remember that part where signatory countries are only allowed to make exceptions in cases where the original author suffers no harm? Can you guess how the U.S. got away with creating section 107, the "Fair Use" clause? Simple. You're always guilty, unless a court says otherwise.
In other words, you can
claim that you are using copyrighted work under "fair use" defense. But the only way to find out if you’re right is to have a court rule on the matter. You might think that you fulfill all 4 of the above cases, but the only way to know is to be sued. Fun times!
Please note, regarding the above advice:
I am not a lawyer, and I am especially not your lawyer. The opinions stated here are my personal understanding of US copyright law and international copyright treaty. My opinions have been informed by a lawyer and also by workshops on the subject of copyright law provided by the Massachusetts Bar Association. I have
not specifically shown your post to these parties nor have they contributed to my writing this post. That being said, it's an informed post.