The basic assumption for justifying parody from various legal claims has been that it takes a gist of the original, work and creates something at the sacrifice of the original works. So, unless the work has no critical bearing on the substance or styl...
The basic assumption for justifying parody from various legal claims has been that it takes a gist of the original, work and creates something at the sacrifice of the original works. So, unless the work has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original, composition but merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working, then the legal, claim for supporting political parody should fail. Consequently, whether the current political, parody at internet can be qualified as such parody should be the first question for analytical steps. Such understanding is in line with the goal of copyright which encourages the creation and freedom of expression which protects only well-balanced expressions for interested parties.
This process of selecting 'protective political parody' can be counterattacked by freedom of expression considerations of chilling effect. However, such worries can be surely and fairly melted into application process of copyright Jaw 'fair use' exception which is already an outcome of balancing freedom of expression value This ad hoc balancing is justified easily under Korean Constitutional Lav/ which uniquely stipulates the boundary of freedom of expression by "The freedom of Expression shall not infringe upon individual, reputation or rights or public moral, or social, value." Even the outcome out of this ad hoc balancing process can be subject -to other claims based on defamation or violations of 'Public Post Election Act'.