Last updated on 12/22/2019
Well, she switched from using “bodily fluids” to “biological samples” in her legal arguments to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after I pointed out that that the former might be a bit too Dr. Strangelove. So my post was not just parody, it was constructive parody – the best and, I hope, the most legally protected kind of parody.
In any case here’s the latest letter from the lawyer who’s the lawyer for the lawyer who’s working for UO’s lawyers who work for UO President Schill, a lawyer. He wants to talk to my lawyer:
Preserve this.
Thank you for including all of this newsworthy information that helps us, the general public, stay informed. Can’t wait to see H&K’s filings trying to sell their new definition of fair use!
Informed and I hope laughing your asses off, as that will be central to my legal defense. Now I just need to find a lawyer. I thought about Bill Gary at HLGR. Very experienced with takedown demands, but no evidence he has a sense of humor. This guy is on my short list for sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KniUNdVZvH4
better call Saul.
I’m no English professor, but Jarvis may have a point of sorts. While the incorporation of Barran’s copyrighted picture and bits of her puffery is obviously protected as fair use, the post taken as a whole is more satire than parody. That is, it uses
In contrast,
and it has even more legal protection than satire.
While satire is more than enough to get you off the hook for a DMCA violation here, you could ice your case by adding some parody to the specific copyrighted work in question. Perhaps a mustache and funny hat, plus some creative license with that “top point getter” quote? Or some “biological samples” dripping from her nose?