ABPA - Australian Bush Poets Association

I did a parody once at a poetry performance competition. It was one that I had written myself and I did it in the original humorous section.
One of the judges made a criticism that a parody was not suitable for an original work.

I heard a lawyer giving a talk on the ABC radio law report and this lawyer spoke about literary parodies, she said that parodies were not classed legally as infringement of copyright and that ethically they were not taken as plagiarism.

So David, since you are an ABPA judge, is there some way that we can get the message to bush poetry judges that parody is a valid form of original work.

G'day Neville,

I know a bloke who had his entry in a written comp returned and was told the same thing.. It was not original.

WHAT THE ????? how can a parody not be original??? By definition it is a literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule - it isn't a carbon copy

'Clancy of the Undertow' received a High Commendation in the Bronze Swagman in 1986, and was published in the anthology of that year.

More recently (perhaps two years ago) it received Second Prize in the Harrington 'Poets by the Sea' written comp (humourous section).

I don't enter performance competitions, so I can't comment on that side of things.

G'day Neville and Stephen,

Once again, I think this may be the 'whim' of the judge. I find some parodies so very clever. Also if we were to analyse every poem to the enth degree we could find something that was 'after the style' or 'along the lines of 'or a 'similar story line as' to compare everything with.

I think it was Leonie Parker who said she felt there were no 'new' subjects to address in her writing. I wonder if she still feels like this? Leonie?
The way I see it a good writer can always find a new angle to approach an old topic. For example, if I said write a poem about the moon I bet I would receive a dozen different styles and rhyming pattens. And as for the adjectives, English has myriad choices.

That's the point I want to make Zondrae. " whim " has got nothing to do with it.
I understand that there are subjective elements in assessing the merits of poetry but the issue of the validity of parodies to stand as original, is not subjective.

If the bush poetry judges are going to ; on a whim, decide that something is wrong, when it is authoritatively right according to law, ethics and literature, then they have no business judging poetry competitions.

As I said, I understand the subjective element, but I just get very riled, being censured over a fault that is not a fault. The originality of parody is not a matter of whimsical opinion, it is an authoritatively established principle.

G/day Neville,
I had always thought of parodies as a sort fun thing that you might do among friends etc.
I hadn't thought of doing one as a comp. poem, thinking it would probably get turfed out if you did.
But have since noticed the odd one cropping up. I'm open minded on the subject but at this stage
probably wouldn't bother myself unless it was a specific thing for Parodies.

Terry

Touchy nag gray area. Australian law reviewed and changed in 2006. Quick overview.

This article examines the role of the recently introduced fair dealing exception for the purposes of parody and satire in Australian copyright law. Parody and satire, while central to Australian expression, pose a substantial challenge for copyright policy. The law is asked to strike a delicate balance between an author’s right to exploit their work, the interests of the public in stimulating free speech and critical discussion, the rights of artists who rely on existing material in creating their own expression, and the rights of all artists in their reputation and the integrity of their works. This article highlights the difficulty parodists and satirists have historically faced in Australia and examines the potential of the new fair dealing exceptions to relieve this difficulty. This article concludes that the new exceptions have the potential, if read broadly, not only to bridge the gap between humorous and non-humorous criticism, but also to allow for the use of copyright material to critique figures other than the copyright owner or author, extending to society generally. This article will argue that the new exceptions should be read broadly to further this important policy goal while also being limited in their application so as to prevent mere substitutable uses of copyright material. To achieve these twin goals, I suggest that the primary indication of fairness of an unlicensed parody should be whether or not it adds significant new expression so as not to be substitutable for the original work.

Sorry, link

http://nic.suzor.net/_media/publication ... alr218.pdf

G'day Neil .
I read all through that report on the link. Nearly fried my brain

In my previous life , I've had to read law reports and High Court decisions, it is difficult to get any clear answer from them.

I noticed in this report that the examples given of satire/parody- case history, related to substantial commercial or market issues which I wouldn't think concern us lowly bush poets in the bush poetry comp.

The conclusion that I thought was there, is that in Australia, the type of parodies used in bush poetry comps are perfectly acceptable as the writers own work. Maybe there's a lawyer out there to correct me.

Of course I am not suggesting that the bush poetry judge can't make a distinction between a well done parody or a poorly constructed parody. That's a different issue....I think ...