No copyright infringement is intended. This video is the property of: http://andrewchristian.com

This is a song based on the love poem by Pablo Neruda.

“ALL THAT SPAZ:” Show #2, Scene #1 from La Misteriosa on Vimeo.

Suppositori ‘Spaz’ Spelling celebrates her birthday with friends and fans at ‘Beatbox’ in SoMa, San Francisco, CA.

Use of music in this clip falls under 17 U.S.C. § 107 for FAIR USE under PARODY & SATIRE clauses.

Id. at 581: Even satire that does not target the original work can be considered fair use if, for instance, there is little possibility that consumers would view the satire as a commercial substitute.

Courts should not pass judgment on the literary meaning and aesthetics of
a work: noted in Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251 (1903):

The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that a parody may qualify as fair use
under § 107. According to the Court, a parody is the “use of some elements of a
prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on
that author’s works.” Id. at 580. Like other forms of comment or criticism,
parody can provide social benefit, “by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in
the process, creating a new one.” Id. In other words, parodies can be considered
“transformative” works, as opposed to merely “superseding” works. Since
transformative works “lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine’s guarantee of
breathing space within the confines of copyright,” the more transformative the
parody, the less will be the importance of other § 107 factors that may weigh
against a finding of fair use. Id. at 579.

15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(4)(B): Following First Amendment precedent, expressive works may be
considered “noncommercial” even though they have a commercial
purpose. “Thus, for example, the use of famous marks in non-commercial
settings, such as parodies, consumer product reviews, and news and
investigative reports, would not be actionable.” 2 GILSON ET AL., supra, §
5A.01[9][b]. Parodies, consumer product reviews, and news reports all
arguably contain a commercial component, but can still be considered
“noncommercial speech.” The legislative history to the Act’s counterpart
16 bill includes a comment from then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee Orrin Hatch, who remarked, “[t]he bill will not prohibit or
threaten noncommercial expression, such as parody, satire, editorial and
other forms of expression that are not a part of a commercial transaction.”
See id. (quoting 141 CONG. REC. S19306, 19310 (daily ed. Dec. 29, 1995)
(statement of Sen. Hatch)).