http://tags.library.upenn.edu/sheribr/direct_satire+acuff_rose PennTags Feed http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/36065 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/36065 <p>In this journal article, Annemarie Bridy discusses the history of satire and parody throughout a variety of cases, concentrating especially on the <em>Campbell</em> case. She argues that Justice Souter's decision entitles parodists more than satirists when deciding how much and what kind of borrowing is appropriate for fair use arguments. So, what happens when a parodic work "shades into satire?" Is it no longer classifiable and therefore defensible as a parody?</p> <p>In order to answer this question, Bridy draws upon literary theory and the distinction of "indirect satire" and "direct satire" to argue that some satire (direct) is definitely not permissible under fair use, but others (indirect) should be. As is, the definitions of parody and satire seem to be mutually exclusive, which can draw unfair consequences for indirect parody. Instead of employing such a distinct definition between satire and parody, she argues that the distinction should be drawn between two types of satirical parody, eliminating the problems that result from a hybrid of satire and parody.</p>