The Parody Not in the Logo

Hit & Run and BoingBoing are abusing Miller Brewing for protecting its copyright and trademark in the Miller logo from an L.A. based manufacturer of "It's Mullet Time" t-shirts. Granted the t-shirts (posted on BoingBoing) are cool, but I believe this example is similar to the OJ/Cat in the Hat parody and not one worth fighting over. In that case, The Cat in the Hat story was used as the vehicle to parody OJ, and not as the object of the parody; pseudo-parodist loses. Just as the Miller logo is being used here to "parody" mulletheads. There are also some good comments in the Hit & Run post discussing why Miller might be pursuing the action. 

more: Profesor Lessig on the meaning of "parody":

Everyone's seen the brilliant JibJab Flash of Bush/Kerry. The piece claims to be a "parody" of Woody Guthrie's "This Land." As any copyright lawyer recognizes, it is not a "parody" in the sense that "fair use" ordinarily recognizes it. A "fair use" "parody" is a work that uses a work to make fun of the author. JibJab is using Guthrie's work not to make fun of Guthrie, but of the candidates. (For the now classic case on this, see Dr. Suess v. Penguin Press, where a "parody" of O.J. Simpson using The Cat in the Hat was not "fair use.") ... the key thing this story should do is force us to ask generally: Does a law that makes a political parody such as Jibjab illegal (even if it is not a "parody" in the copyright view of the world) make sense?

more: Based on Marty's further analysis of jibjab, I believe there is still a strong basis for asserting a Seuss rather than a Pretty Woman outcome:

Some are hung up on the Cat Is Not In The Hat case, arguing that the target of the parody is not the song itself. However, if you look at footnote 14 from the 2 Live Crew/Pretty Woman case, you see that the targeting requirement is not all that rigid when there is no little possiblity of commercial substitution by the parody.

more: Professor Eugene Volokh weighs in:

"This Land Is Your Land"-based lyrics has drawn a complaint from the owners of the "This Land Is Your Land" copyright. The copyright owners have a pretty good case. If JibJab were making fun of the song, then the cartoon would likely be a fair use. But JibJab seems to be just using the song to make fun of Bush and Kerry, rather than making much of a comment about the song itself -- that makes the fair use defense much weaker. (See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (1994), the "Oh, Pretty Woman" case; see also Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA, the Seuss-rhymes-about-O.J. case from the Ninth Circuit several years ago.) I realize one could argue that JibJab is partly commenting on the song, and, even if courts reject that argument, JibJab's fair use case isn't a clear loser. But on balance, the copyright owner's s argument is likely stronger than the defendant's."

As Lessig says, "Fair use is the right to hire a lawyer."

Prior posts on trademark (as opposed to copyright) parody cases here and here.