Recent events have prompted me to think about the difference between parody and copyright infringement, and where the fine line is between them – especially in the fuzzy world of the Internet and its microcosm, YouTube.

The event I’m referring to was KnowledgeTree’s clever parody of the Old Spice Superbowl ad, “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like,” featuring a handsome specimen with the great throwaway line “I’m on a horse.” Our parody replaced his soundtrack with an altered script that compared KnowledgeTree to a shared drive with the final line “I’m open source.”

Unfortunately, after about 7,000 views on YouTube, the video was removed because of a complaint lodged by Procter and Gamble about copyright infringement.

As I pondered this, my attention was drawn to the rather tastelessly funny “Hitler Reacts” parodies on YouTube. This extensive series of parodies (there must be at least 50 of them) riff on a scene from the 2004 movie “Downfall” where Hitler is being informed by his top brass that all is lost, and he proceeds to rant furiously in German.

The parodies all follow the same basic theme – Hitler is being told something he doesn’t want to hear – he’s been banned from Xbox Live, Usain Bolt has broken the world record, a Harry Potter movie is delayed – and he reacts violently in subtitles.

The KnowledgeTree parody followed the same basic premise: use an existing bit of footage and change the text. Yet, Hitler parodies get millions of hits and remain active, while our video gets removed based on one complaint from P&G.

Parody is loosely defined as “imitation,” often for comedic effect. According to Publaw:

A parody exists when one imitates a serious piece of work, such as literature, music or artwork, for a humorous or satirical effect.