Very little of Weird Al’s work counts as parody. Some of it does (or at least could), such as Smells Like Nirvana, because it is providing commentary or criticism of the original.
More of it counts as the broader category of satire, which has significantly lower legal protections.
However, the vast majority of his parodies would be defined as derivative works. If it’s about food or TV, this is probably the category.
That being said, Al has never had any of this tested in court. He has a policy to get permission in advance, and that prevents any legal concerns. No one knows for sure how any courts would rule on the subject.
Very little of Weird Al’s work counts as parody. Some of it does (or at least could), such as Smells Like Nirvana, because it is providing commentary or criticism of the original.
More of it counts as the broader category of satire, which has significantly lower legal protections.
However, the vast majority of his parodies would be defined as derivative works. If it’s about food or TV, this is probably the category.
That being said, Al has never had any of this tested in court. He has a policy to get permission in advance, and that prevents any legal concerns. No one knows for sure how any courts would rule on the subject.
ETA: This site has a more thorough analysis. Al’s work has a lot in common with the Dr Seuss case.
https://copyrightalliance.org/is-my-parody-fair-use/