I didn't make the first argument and don't agree with it. To me (not a lawyer) creating a commercial parody should not disqualify a work from being fair use pe

I didn't make the first argument and don't agree with it. To me (not a lawyer) creating a commercial parody should not disqualify a work from being fair use per se. Campbell clearly backs that up. The copyright act says the law should analyse: "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" The Girls parody is for a commercial nature, as was Pretty Woman. But the purpose and character of them are different - Pretty Woman was created as a piece of art that was created to parody Oh, Pretty Woman. The Girls parody was created to be the soundtrack of an advertisement for Goldiblocks. There seems to be a slippery slope: should advertisers get free access to the oeuvre of popular music to use without cost, provided they change the nature of the piece? That would seemingly break "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." But that's just my gut feeling. I'm obviously not an expert here.