Not always a laughing matter: Using parody as a defence to copyright infringement

Parody has long been a beloved tool for British comedians, satirists, and creators hoping to shine a new light, often a cheeky or critical one, on well known cultural works. But while parody enjoys some legal protection under UK copyright law, its boundaries are narrow and, as two headline cases show, getting those boundaries wrong can come at a steep price.

Parody and UK copyright law: A limited exception

Since 2014, UK law has recognised a specific ‘fair dealing‘ exception for parody, caricature, and pastiche, tacked on to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The intent was to enable the kind of comic reworking that is a staple of cultural discourse, without unduly harming the interests of copyright holders.

Yet, unlike in the US, where ‘fair use’ is broad and flexible, the UK’s parody defence is tightly confined. To qualify, the parodic work must do more than copy: it must evoke the original while being ‘noticeably different’ from it, and its primary purpose must be to express humour, mock, or comment critically on the original. The use must also be ‘fair’ in all the circumstances, which generally means not using more of the original than is necessary, and certainly not harming the market for the original.

Fair dealing or dodgy dealing?

The recent Only Fools and Horses dining experience case offered a striking lesson in how easy it is to cross the line from parody into infringement. The ‘Only Fools The (cushty) Dining Experience’ recreated the TV classic in an immersive dinner event, with actors mimicking not just the appearance and voices of Del Boy and Rodney, but also their catchphrases, jokes, and even backstories, the very DNA of the show itself.

Shazam Productions, owner of the original scripts, sued for copyright infringement and passing off, arguing the experience leaned heavily on the sitcom’s protected material. The court agreed, with the judge holding, that copyright subsists not just in scripts and songs, but in the distinctive character of Del Boy himself. This set a powerful precedent, recognising that truly unique, fully developed characters can be protected as literary works under copyright law.

The dining show’s operators tried to rely on the parody defence. However, the court rejected this, finding that they had not reworked the original, but simply reproduced it in a new setting. The judge concluded: ‘the characters, language, jokes and backstories were lifted wholesale,’ and feedback from audience members confirmed the experience was virtually identical to watching an actual episode.

The lesson? Relying too heavily on the original’s key elements, especially when the public perceives your work as a direct substitute, is unlikely to be treated as fair use.

Sylvanian Families go from playroom to courtroom 

If the parody is so immersive or faithful to the original that consumers are confused, or the copyright owner loses revenue, the risk of losing in court is high.

Von Engelbrechten, thrust the beloved Sylvanian Families toys into the viral spotlight, but not in the way their Japanese creators intended. Her comedic sketches depicted the cute woodland creatures engaging in adult behaviour ranging from drinking to drug use. While some viewers found it hilarious, the brand’s owner, Epoch Company Ltd, did not.

Epoch initiated copyright infringement proceedings in the US, claiming the videos were causing ‘irreparable injury’ to the family-friendly image of their toys. In response, Von Engelbrechten submitted a counterclaim, arguing her videos were ‘parody’ using the toys to comment on, exaggerate, and subvert their squeaky clean reputations.

Although the current dispute is in the US, the UK’s position presents parallel risks for creators. Even if Von Engelbrechten’s videos could be argued to parody the world of Sylvanian Families, UK law provides an additional hurdle: protections against ‘derogatory treatment’ of copyright works. Moral rights allow creators to object if their work is subjected to treatment that is prejudicial to their honour or reputation, even if the use would otherwise appear to fit within parody.

Parodies may be especially risky in the UK, where the original creator’s right to the integrity of their work persists. Had such a claim been brought before a UK court, the central question would be whether the parody distorted or harmed the character of the Sylvanian Families brand; if so, the defence of parody may fail, and the parody could be ordered to be taken down.

Parody is not a free pass

The Only Fools and Horses and Sylvanian Families disputes reveal the fine line creators must walk when drawing on copyrighted works for comic effect. UK law is clear: parody is an exception, not an automatic right. It demands a genuinely transformative use one that comments on or ridicules the original without overstepping into mere imitation, and without hurting the underlying work’s commercial value or reputation.

Creators must also remember that copying even a single, highly recognisable character or a famous scene can be enough to trigger both infringement and passing off risks. This is especially true when the public is likely to confuse the parody with the original, or if the imitation undermines licensing arrangements, merchandising, or brand goodwill.

A word of caution for creators

In a digital age where going viral is only a click away, these legal developments serve as a warning.

Head of Intellectual Property, Jill Bainbridge comments:

Parody can be powerful, but it’s not a blank cheque. If you borrow too much, or your humour comes at the expense of an original work’s reputation or revenue, you might find yourself on the end of a copyright infringement claim.