I wonder if crotchhunter.com consulted with an attorney before building that site. Seems to me, Steve Irwin could easily sue them for defamation of character and possibly trademark infringement.
Originally posted by SomeCreep I wonder if crotchhunter.com consulted with an attorney before building that site. Seems to me, Steve Irwin could easily sue them for defamation of character and possibly trademark infringement.
I don't know where it will go because US law is pretty settled about the parody exception in the "Fair Use" doctrine.
Maybe under Australian law they'd have a better shot.
I don't know where it will go because US law is pretty settled about the parody exception in the "Fair Use" doctrine.
Maybe under Australian law they'd have a better shot.
Non-commercial parody clearly falls under fair use, but commercial sites can be shut down depending on numerous criteria including "dilution of trademark value".
Originally posted by mardigras
Non-commercial parody clearly falls under fair use, but commercial sites can be shut down depending on numerous criteria including "dilution of trademark value".
In the 1993 Supreme Court case, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the Court held that Pretty Woman, 2 Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's rock ballad Oh, Pretty Woman, was protected under the fair use exception to the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Section 107.
In the 1993 Supreme Court case, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the Court held that Pretty Woman, 2 Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's rock ballad Oh, Pretty Woman, was protected under the fair use exception to the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Section 107.
Comment