3 ms·

This misses the point. This question was about whether the Parody exception is valid in this case. Was the dog toy a joke? Making a joke out of something pop

by q1w2 3y ago

This misses the point. This question was about whether the Parody exception is valid in this case. Was the dog toy a joke? Making a joke out of something popular is an allowed exception to trademark. The ruling seems to say that it wasn't a joke and therefore not covered under the exception. I get both sides of the argument. A physical product you're selling that has a clear non-parody purpose should have a higher bar to be regarded as parody. A more difficult example might be a t-shirt with a Google logo on it that has something "funny" about Google written below.

kemayo 3y ago
> A more difficult example might be a t-shirt with a Google logo on it that has something "funny" about Google written below. I think a more exact comparison would be, say, a t-shirt with a fluffy Google logo and the text changed to say "Poodle". It's not really saying anything about Google, it's just using Google-related imagery mashed up with dog-related imagery.
- q1w2 3y ago
  I'm not sure that's a better comparison, because the subject of the JD lawsuit, the toy had the exact imagery of the JD brand - not an alteration of it.
  - kemayo 3y ago
    It's subjective, but to me the picture of the dog toy in the article looks about as distinct from a real bottle of Jack Daniels as that Google logo example.
    - q1w2 3y ago
      There is legal importance in the brand symbol specifically - moreso than the product shape. The correct comparison is brand symbol/mark to brand symbol/mark.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  A crucial consideration for parody is that you can't choose something else. You are parodying this particular thing, so any substitute wouldn't work, and that's why we have a right to make parodies - without such rights your work can't exist at all because you'd need the people you're poking fun at to allow it. The example I like (even though Weird Al seeks permission and so doesn't need his fair use rights) is Weird Al's "Smells Like Nirvana" versus "Fat". Smells Like Nirvana is necessarily about Smells Like Teen Spirit and Nirvana's video for that song. It has lyrics like "We're so loud and incoherent / Boy this oughta bug your parents". If you make that song using Dolly Parton's "9 to 5" as the basic structure, now it's just nonsense. I believe the parody exception would apply to "Smells Like Nirvana". "Fat" isn't about Bad or Michael Jackson. Jackson wasn't fat, the character he's portraying isn't fat, the song isn't about food, there's no connection. It's just funny lyrics to the same structure. If you do this to Bon Jovi's "Living' On a Prayer" that's funny too, a few people have done so, "Standin' On a Chair" for example. If you did that and get wealthy, expect Bon Jovi's label to demand most of it, parody rules don't help you. With the T-shirt that says "Poodle" like a Google logo, you don't need their style. You could use the Ford logo, or the McDonalds logo, or a dozen others, doubtless you'd say you wanted a double-O - does Moodle (a VLE) have a logo? I bet they do. If you wanted Google's logo 'cos it's recognisable that is not a protected reason. As I understand it this Supreme Court decision was pretty narrow, and doesn't get into the parody question anyway.

by q1w2 3y ago

kemayo 3y ago

> A more difficult example might be a t-shirt with a Google logo on it that has something "funny" about Google written below. I think a more exact comparison would be, say, a t-shirt with a fluffy Google logo and the text changed to say "Poodle". It's not really saying anything about Google, it's just using Google-related imagery mashed up with dog-related imagery.

q1w2 3y ago
I'm not sure that's a better comparison, because the subject of the JD lawsuit, the toy had the exact imagery of the JD brand - not an alteration of it.
- kemayo 3y ago
  It's subjective, but to me the picture of the dog toy in the article looks about as distinct from a real bottle of Jack Daniels as that Google logo example.
  - q1w2 3y ago
    There is legal importance in the brand symbol specifically - moreso than the product shape. The correct comparison is brand symbol/mark to brand symbol/mark.
tialaramex 3y ago
A crucial consideration for parody is that you can't choose something else. You are parodying this particular thing, so any substitute wouldn't work, and that's why we have a right to make parodies - without such rights your work can't exist at all because you'd need the people you're poking fun at to allow it. The example I like (even though Weird Al seeks permission and so doesn't need his fair use rights) is Weird Al's "Smells Like Nirvana" versus "Fat". Smells Like Nirvana is necessarily about Smells Like Teen Spirit and Nirvana's video for that song. It has lyrics like "We're so loud and incoherent / Boy this oughta bug your parents". If you make that song using Dolly Parton's "9 to 5" as the basic structure, now it's just nonsense. I believe the parody exception would apply to "Smells Like Nirvana". "Fat" isn't about Bad or Michael Jackson. Jackson wasn't fat, the character he's portraying isn't fat, the song isn't about food, there's no connection. It's just funny lyrics to the same structure. If you do this to Bon Jovi's "Living' On a Prayer" that's funny too, a few people have done so, "Standin' On a Chair" for example. If you did that and get wealthy, expect Bon Jovi's label to demand most of it, parody rules don't help you. With the T-shirt that says "Poodle" like a Google logo, you don't need their style. You could use the Ford logo, or the McDonalds logo, or a dozen others, doubtless you'd say you wanted a double-O - does Moodle (a VLE) have a logo? I bet they do. If you wanted Google's logo 'cos it's recognisable that is not a protected reason. As I understand it this Supreme Court decision was pretty narrow, and doesn't get into the parody question anyway.