CompuServe Thread

Paul, I've recently looked into Fair Use laws at the local library. Seems like what you're describing falls within fair use based on allowance for parody, even if you didn't alter the logo. However, the parody sections are written specifically in relation to musical works. Also, a large part of any court decision is based on what monetary damage the plaintiff may have suffered as a result of your actions–in this case; none. Sounds like there would be no case. I am no lawyer, so don't bother trying to sue me if I'm wrong. Gary

>My question: is this enough alteration to satisfy the parody? I'm not selling this video, nor am I producing it for money, but it will see limited distribution to certain members of the wedding party. Does this still fall in 'personal domain'?< Maybe not under "personal domain", but you're certainly protected under "satire" from trademark/copyright infringement or libel. NATIONAL LAMPOON routinely does pretty much what you've done–take a known design and change a letter or two (i.e., changing the "d" in the word "Budweiser" w/two "t"s so it comes out "Buttweiser" <groan…>). Satire and parody are considered an essential part of free speech–so long's the intent is clearly humorous or satiric (and it does not appear that you're attempting to misrepresent your product as someone else's), you've got a few centuries of precedent to protect you. (If you were, OTOH, attempting to *sell* "Colgrate Frosting" by putting it in toothpaste tubes and giving it a design similar to Colgate's, you *might* have a problem–though even that's questionable, since Rome Black's "XTransits" morphing software comes in a box designed a great deal like TIDE laundry detergent's…) I seem to recall a recent libel/trademark infringement case where Rev. Jerry Falwell and Dewar's Scotch both sued HUSTLER over a satiric print ad where HUSTLER used the format of Dewar's then campaign "So&So Talks About His/Her First Time" to suggest Falwell was talking to Dewar's about having sex w/his mother behind the barn when he was a kid. The judge threw the case out, ruling that while the satire was certainly tasteless in his opinion, the intent was clearly satiric and did not represent trademark/copyright infringement in Dewar's case, nor libel in Falwell's. As for "personal" vs. "public" domain…well, now, that all depends on a) whether anyone connected w/Colgate-Palmolive actually finds out about the video, and b) whether or not Colgate-Palmolive *honestly* wants the PR nightmare of suing some poor videographer who used their product in a wedding video seen only by friends of the lucky couple… 😉