Good enough song, but it raises my interest in how many kinds of copyright infringement can dance on the head of a YouTube video. The required rights in this song would be at minimum the synchronization rights to the underlying music composition, and a derivative works license for the same. YouTube has undertaken some kind of rights licensing deal for infringing music covers by getting the owners of the copyright for some catalogs to refrain from at least suing YouTube for contributory infringement in exchange for sharing revenue from ads placed on videos infringing those catalogs, but whether their deal with the publishers give some kind of license to the uploader is something of a mystery. It is also not clear that the mysterious agreements permit unidentified uploaders to create derivative works.
And before someone says that this song is protected under the fair use exception for parody, it is not. A parody is an aspect of the fair use exception of commentary and criticism, which allows de minimis use of the work itself to criticise the work. The supreme court made clear in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. that parody must criticize the work itself, and not just use the work in a humorous social commentary or criticism of something else. That latter use is satire, which is not protected, rather than parody. Because the words are changed but the music is used, the infringed right is not just that the music was used without permission, but that it was used to create a new derivative work, which requires a separate permission. If the uploader had attempted to get a compulsory mechanical license to record this work to CD or digital download, he would not qualify, since compulsory mechanical licenses can only be obtained if there is minimal alteration from the original composition needed to match a new style or genre. Creating a whole new song with an old melody does not qualify.
Of course there is no compulsory license to create a derivative work, or synchronize a composition with video, so the question is what rights, if any, are licensed by the YouTube content identification and monetization agreements, and are the uploading infringers in any way granted either a license to use those rights or immunization against liability for their infringement in the context of the YouTube distribution. Technically, lacking the licenses mentioned, this video infringes copyright as soon as it is recorded, and before it is uploaded to YouTube where it begins to infringe the public performance rights. In spite of the ad revenue licensing deals that YouTube has with publishers, the terms of service still requires the uploader to certify that they have all of the rights and permissions to make and publish the work prior to uploading, and requires them to defend and hold YouTube harmless against claims of infringement. In other words pay the legal fees and other losses suffered by YouTube. If that part of the TOS were removed, YouTube would potentially make itself liable for soliciting copyright infringement.