英国论文代写：音乐版权

英国论文代写：音乐版权

Snark Entertainment正试图填补这个不喜欢Ted的市场需求。正是由于这个原因，Snark创造了一个没有Ted的电影版本。版权作品的价值因此得到提高。然而，增加价值不是为了支持版权作品，它实际上会以降低版权作品市场为代价来增加新版本的商业价值。这可能意味着Engulf和Devour加强他们的侵权论点的损失。

英国论文代写：音乐版权
最高法院在坎贝尔诉阿卡夫罗斯音乐有限公司的案件中对拟真公平使用权进行了评估。根据最高法院对本案所界定的拙劣模仿法是在某种情况下会使用某些元素到创建批评旧的元素的一组新元素。戏仿应该提供某种形式的变革性的工作，不应该只是现有作品的续集。它应该创造某种形式的社会效益。因此，在公平使用原则下，法院倾向于模仿。然而，在同一裁决中，法院还指出，如果这种戏仿在市场上以广泛传播的方式广泛传播，实际上会导致戏仿被用作原作的替代品，那么它可能不公平。 Snark Entertainment的工作与Engulf＆Devour的工作截然不同。他们已经改变了很多。然而，出于娱乐的目的，在观众的需求被考虑在内的情况下，他们创造的模仿可以很好地替代旧作品。其次，坎贝尔诉Acuff-Rose音乐公司强调的是最低限度的发行。 Snarks并非如此，他们想在YouTube上发布它，这可能不是最简单的发行版。从法律上讲，Snark属于公平使用频谱的较弱端。

英国论文代写：音乐版权

Snark Entertainment is attempting to fill the demands of this market that do not prefer Ted. It is for this reason that Snark has created a movie version without Ted. The value of the copyrighted work is hence increased. However the value increase is not to support the copyrighted work, it will in fact increase commercial value of the newer release at the cost of degrading the market for the copyrighted work. This could mean loss for Engulf & Devour strengthening their arguments for infringement.

英国论文代写：音乐版权
The Parody fair use has been weighed by the Supreme Court in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. A parody according to the Supreme court as defined for this case is one where there is a use of elements which in some way will lead to the creation of a newer set of elements that criticizes the old one. A parody should provide some form of transformative work and should not just be a sequel to an existing work. It should create some form of a social benefit. Under the fair use doctrine, the court therefore favours the parody. However in the same ruling the court also stated that if such a parody was to be widely disseminated in a way in the market that would actually lead to the parody being used as a substitute for the original, then it might not be fair right. The work of Snark Entertainment is much different than that of Engulf & Devour’s. They have transformed it a lot. However for the purpose of entertainment with the Chuckles, with the audience’s demand being factored in, the parody they create could very well serve as a substitute to the older work. Secondly, the court in the case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. emphasizes on minimal distribution. This is not the case with Snarks, who want to release it on YouTube, which might not be minimal distribution. Legally speaking Snark falls on the weaker end of the fair use spectrum.