Saying "this phone sometimes explodes so it's a bomb now" isn't a parodic statement, can you follow? It's not following the protocol to be self-referential to m

Saying "this phone sometimes explodes so it's a bomb now" isn't a parodic statement, can you follow? It's not following the protocol to be self-referential to make a point. It's just simply a "what if" manipulation of the existence of the item and a characteristic. Oh the S7 is a grenade now! That's satire, not parody. Not protected by Fair Use in the big picture. Let me break it down more simplistically: If the GTA mod included the S7, and it could be used as a phone as intended, but the phone would blow up and kill your character at random, then that's a self-referencing S7 parody implementation. It's a really tedious differentiation, I know, I get it, but it's important because of how often the parody / satire / commentary terms sort of overlap in everyday chats but genuinely have distinct parameters, especially in Fair Use cases.