YouTube's January Fair Use Massacre

1. Is your use noncommercial?

Yes, it is non commercial since she is just making fun of the song by way of singing. I think there is nothing wrong if somebody will sing a song that is copyrighted.

2.      Is your use for purposes of criticism, comment, parody, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research?

Yes, she has purpose why she sang the song.

3.      Is the original work mostly fact (as opposed to mostly fiction or opinion)?

Yes, the original work is mostly fact. 

4.      Has the original work been published (as opposed to sent out only to one or a few people)?

Yes, it was already published.

5.      Are you copying only a small part of the original work?

No. She copied everything from the original work because it is a song.

6.      Are you copying only a relatively insignificant part of the original work (as opposed to the most important part)?

No. She copied everything the lyrics of the song.

7.      Are you adding a lot new to the work (as opposed to just quoting parts of the original)

Yes, she adds a work in the song because she is the one who sang that song.

8.      Does your conduct leave unaffected any profits that the copyright owner can make (as opposed to displacing some potential sales OR potential licenses of reprint rights)?

Yes, the copyright owner will not be affected if she sang that song.

Conclusion: I believed that it is Fair use since most answers are YES.