[joesbucks]

It's no different than the Bill Clinton parody songs Rush Limbaugh plays on his show.

Except that Rush has permission or a contract to use Shanklin's songs.

[ClintonBeGone]

Except that Rush has permission or a contract to use Shanklin's songs.

You're missing my point. The question isn't whether Rush has permission from Shanklin, its whether Shanklin has or NEEDS permission from the creators of the songs he uses in his parodies.

[Physicist]

You're missing the point. Rush doesn't get sued by the writers of the original songs upon which the Shanklin parodies are based.

[LibertarianInExile]

Except that you're not talking about the same thing. The parody involved on Rush's show is not him stealing Shanklin's stuff--it's Shanklin using original songs produced by others in his parodies. Rush may have permission from Shanklin, but he needs no permission from the others because it is obviously parody.

Weird Al, on the other hand, has permission from others, because his songs are almost purely commercial, and he doesn't feel eager to litigate over his right to use such works. But he could, if he wanted to, use them freely. That's not just me saying it. The courts settled this issue pretty recently.