Plus, some things tend to come up more than others.
In this case, Weird Al was on TV, and my friend Amanda recently had been showing me the referenced Disney-based videos (within the article, seriously, go click it).
Jon Cozart has some great videos under his belt in this Disney run he's got going. But while he labels it a parody, the question remains - is that accurate? Well, a parody has to "lampoon" the original work itself, and writing new words to an old melody doesn't necessarily count. It's got to directly target the "content and soul" of the original.
That said - think about it - Weird Al is kind in his works, and not parodying for the most part. He brought new comedy to a familiar tune, but never made an attack on what the originals stood for (okay, maybe that's subject to opinion, but come on, you have to believe that a guy that fun wouldn't be so cruel). PS - that makes mechanical licensing necessary. Ha.
The Lorde video in question in this article, however, is a parody. It's a mock of the original. Fair use becomes an argument, which is slightly terrifying in a weird way.
I won't get into the "Girl" argument because I just can't express it as well as here. But I will go ahead and note that that first comment is awesome - the parody just has to be in part a comment on the original work. Oooohhh the objective arguments that could be had!
What are your opinions? This may be a conversation really worth diving deep into!