Just read a very interesting article at Salon, Tangled up in Seuss | Salon News, in which author Dan Brekke tells the story of a mashup of Dr. Seuss lyrics sung in the 60's style of Bob Dylan. On another site, one can access the recordings (still, but probably not for long). By the way, Dylan is not involved in any way, either in the creation, nor in the cease and desists, but you'll be surprised at how good an imitation they are.
The article is considerably more thoughtful regarding its fair use analysis than I expected, and tells both sides of the story quite well. It is sad to say that the conclusion, that the artist who created the mashup probably would not win his case based on current precedents and the facts about his particular use of Seuss' content, is probably correct. But Brekke goes on to note that this fact has spurred serious efforts lately to redress the tight strictures on creativity that such interpretations of the law have fostered. At least partly because we have such incredible ability now to take existing works in unanticipated creative directions, many feel that fair use must be given more breadth. I would go even further. I would advocate a loosening of the derivative right itself. For example, there could be a shorter limit on its duration (I think Lessig has suggested this) or the right could encompass less than it does now. Alternatively, some rights to create derivatives could be acquired by those who wish to use a work creatively by means of a statutory license, as the right to create a cover recording of already released recordings are acquired today. Copyright owners usually do not support that kind of allocation of their interests because it takes away their flexibility to say no, and to demand what the market will bear, but that's just the point: the allocation that most encourages creativity is not the allocation that always favors the current creator over those who are coming behind her.
