In this 1986 Court case, Marvin Fisher and Jack Segal brought a suit against Rick Dees for infringing their song "When Sunny Gets Blue" with a parody song entitled "When Sonny Sniffs Glue." Besides infringement, they claimed unfair competition, defamation, and product disparagement. The Court decided that Rick Dees did indeed deserve fair-use protection because it was a parody.

The important points in this case are that every instance of parody defense must be considered individually, that a humorous or satiric work deserves protection only if the copied work is at least partly the target of the work in question, and that parodists will seldom get permission from those whose works are parodied. As they state, "The parody defense to copyright infringement exists precisely to make possible a use that generally cannot be bought" since "[s]elf-esteem is seldom strong enough to permit the granting of permission even in exchange for a reasonable fee." I would argue that the same is true of satires, even if they do not specifically comment on the original work, so they also need some form of protection or compromise for when the rights are denied. This follows Judge Kozinski's logic, so that satires are not stifled simply due to the nature of their work.

In Fisher v. Dees, Rick Dees is sued for using portions of Marvin Fisher and Jack Segal’s song “When Sunny Gets Blue” in his song “When Sonny Sniffs Glue.” It is upheld that Dees’ version is a parody which is defendable under Fair Use.  In arguing this case it was noted that the labeling of a work as a ‘parody’ does not single-handedly defend it and that it “must be considered individually, in light of the statutory factors, reason, experience, and, of course, the general principles developed in past cases.”  The main arguments against Dees in this case included the subject of the parody, the propriety of Dees’ conduct, the purpose and character of the use, the economic effect of the use and the amount and substantiality of the taking.  All of the previous arguments were rejected with sufficient reasoning and the court decided Dees’ song “is a parody deserving of fair-use protection as a matter of law.”

This is relevant to my thesis in determining whether or not my work is a parody that falls under Fair Use.  The arguments used in Fisher v. Dees can be applied to my work to help in the decision.  Fisher v. Dees is most often cited as an example of a case where the economic issue was important, specifically in respect to whether or not the newly created work “fulfills the demand for the original.”  It presents this as one of the more important factors involved with regards to parodies.  Using this argument would support a claim that my work is a parody that is protected by fair use as my work (a play) does not “fulfill the demand for the original (a song).”