Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/animation/watch/v18824604HbnsJEww

Be warned .. this is from the late 40’s and racial offensive stereotypes abound

And yes, I am fully aware that Mr. Yankovic has historically sought, and received, permission from the original artists and/or their labels when releasing his parodies. Since the parody exemption stems directly from the criticism exemption, many of Mr. Yankovics songs would not pass scrutiny (several come to mind, such as “Money for Nothing/Beverly Hillbillies” which isn’t a parody of either the original song nor of the television show).

Also, I would argue that the “Cat in the Hat” suit was more about trademark violation rather than strictly copyright, even if the suit was not specifically addressed as such. If the authors of the unauthorized work had not copied the aforementioned Cat’s red and white striped hat you could easily have claimed it as a “style” parody, and given that you can’t copyright “look and feel” (Apple v Microsoft) probably would have succeeded.

PS: IANAL

Here is a somewhat famous case where a Weird Al type of parody (whose premise was basically “What if O.J. Simpson wrote a Dr. Seuss book?”) did not hold up in court, because the content of the book focused on the O.J. Simpson case, not Dr. Seuss’s work.

Anyway, whether this Snow White image could be considered to comment upon the original work or not is far from cut and dry. Its humor is derived from its contrast with the wholesomeness (I hate that word) of the original, but doesn’t seem to make an actual statement about the original. It could be that it doesn’t have to, though, and the contrast with the original work may be a sufficient defense; Family Guy got away with this defense in a court case concerning a particularly offensive parody (in the “Weird Al” sense of the term, even!) of When You Wish Upon a Star.

- Kef

My understanding is that parody is protected, no matter how foul (the 2Live Crew/Roy Orbison lawsuit), but under fair use copyright law, the parodist still has to pay royalties when using someone else’s tune, whether deliberately or accidentally, like in dance mixes or the My Sweet Lord and Ghostbusters lawsuits.

Weird Al says that he won’t release a parody without permission, that’s why he’s never put Chicken Pot Pie (Live and Let Die) on an album, because Paul McCartney is a vegetarian and couldn’t endorse the song. Legally, Al could do it anyway, as long as he pays the royalties, which is what happened with Coolio and Ganster’s Paradise/Amish Paradise. Al thought he had permission, Coolio says he didn’t give it, but cashes the checks anyway. When Al was set to release You’re Pitiful (James Blunt’s You’re Beautiful), Sony started griping about it even though they’d originally signed off, and Blunt was fine with it. Again, Al could have put it on the album anyway, but he just put it on the web for free.