NY Times article on the demand letter
A website named StereoGum hosted this video and attorneys for Universal sent a demand letter and posted a courtesy copy in the comments thread as well as a copy of Universal’s letter to Bank of America (See the November 13 comments here for the text of the letter).
This is a pretty interesting fact pattern. The Times article quotes the singer to the effect that this was on the approved list of songs, so what is that about (maybe BA paid licensing fees?). If you buy into the ‘parody uses the original work to comment upon the original work’ theory, is this song a parody? If you don’t buy into that theory, is this a parody? If someone filmed this without BA’s approval, and uploaded it to YouTube without BA’s approval, then does BA have exposure?