Parody or unfair use?
https://boingboing.net/2018/11/04/gashlygun-tinies.html
What do you think?

The article makes a distinction between satire and parody. It calls the Mad piece a satire of Gorey, not a parody.

I disagree. It is a satire of gun culture, but a parody of Gorey.

When, back in the day Mad did My Fair Adman (or something like that to my ancient memory) it was doing a satire of Madison Avenue by parodying the songs of My Fair Lady. I don't think the Gorey situation is any different. Mad Magazine has been doing this for centuries.

Easily fair use.

Just to set the rules of the game, "fair use" is a legal concept that includes four factors:

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.


Included in the first factor is whether the accused work is "transformative," meaning the allegedly infringing use supersedes the original work in some artistic or creative sense. Addressing the factors:

First, the use is transformative. The original was a macabre children's book. The new work seems primarily a cultural or political statement. Significantly, it doesn't appear on its own as a book, but rather appears in MAD Magazine, which sits pretty solidly in the political/cultural satire genre. This skews towards a fair use finding.

Second, the nature of the copyrighted work is a commercial work (as opposed to, say, an academic work). These works are afforded the highest protection against fair uses. Nevertheless...

Third, the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work is actually quite small. Importantly, the overall concept (a macabre alphabet-based rhyme) is not a protectable aspect of the work. The specific words of the new work are different, as are the specific drawings. Very clearly, there is a strong aesthetic similarity (both in terms of the visual images and of the rhyme/meter in the text), but these are kind of abstract elements. This factor skews towards a fair use finding.

And finally, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work is probably quite small. In other words, it's unlikely people STOP buying the original work in favor of buying (or otherwise using) the new use. This is pure conjecture on my part, I admit, but I don't see the two works as interchangeable in even a small degree.