This article argues that the introduction of s.30A into the CDPA, covering fair dealing for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche, is far more significant than appreciated thus far owing to the far-reaching scope of the pastiche limb of the exception. It argues that pastiche is not a variant of parody, instead referring to a range of imitative conduct, notably imitation of the style of pre-existing works, incorporation of elements or features of those works, and the production of compilations and medleys. As such, s.30A can extend to mash-ups, fan fiction, music sampling, collage, appropriation art and other forms of homage and compilation, albeit within the infrastructure of fair dealing. To make out these claims, it analyses the ordinary meaning of the term "pastiche", its interpretation as a copyright concept, and the interpretative cues to come from the Court of Justice decision in Deckmyn v Vandersteen.
|Number of pages||23|
|Journal||INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY QUARTERLY|
|Early online date||8 Dec 2017|
|Publication status||Published - 8 Dec 2017|