The Volokh Conspiracy

But where was Chairman Mao?

What movie was the Samuel Jackson line from?

the Jackson line is from Pulp Fiction, when his character was talking about not getting hit by the bullets.

"Must Love Jaws" from the same creators is also hilarious.

Wow. They sure don't make heroes like Yul and Charlton anymore. Hubba hubba.

John, these may actually qualify as parodies. They are kind of making fun of the movie. But you are probably right -- my guess is that these may be, technically, infringements.

Sinead O'Connor?!

Wassamata, you got a problem with the follicularly challenged?

[1] For bonus points: name that reference.

JA - can I get a hint?

Ronald: So if they're infringements, what kind are they? I presented (what I think is) a spectrum of levels of infringement, from the protected ("Pretty Woman") to the unprotected ("Freaks of the Industry").

In particular, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose distinguished parody from satire. While "10 Things I Hate About Commandments" is (as you say) sort of a parody of "The 10 Commandments", it's more part of a broader satirical commentary on the rendering of a movie into its trailer. Many people have noted explicitly that trailers often fail to reflect the movies they're derived from -- sometimes intentionally ("Fight Club"). Trailer remixes push the commentary into satire. Campbell states:

Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims') imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing

That is (in my reading): Kieron Dwyer's Consumer Whore logo is a parody since it's talking about Starbucks specifically, but Jennifer Aniston's character's annoyances of working in a family restaurant in "Office Space" are satirical of that sort of job, so the character can't work in an Applebee's specifically, but in a fictional analogue.

So, trailer remixes are satire, but by their very nature they're dependant on original material. The point can't be made by making a whole new movie and cutting many different trailers, since the visceral hook is that the audience knows the real film and can draw a strong distinction. A given remix isn't protected by Campbell as a parody of its source material, but it strongly blurs the boundary line Campbell tried to draw between parody and satire.

Anyhow, on to Bob: closer to the original is, "The grown-up in me likes _____, but the kid in me likes _____".

Is there a "substantial taking?" You have a minute or two of footage from the original film, but it is so wildly edited and moved out of context that there would probably be no copyright infringement of the script. So you are left with the question of whether there is an infringement with respect to the images (and the music clips).

But then, my knowledge of copyright law is probably older than some of the other people here.