marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Son_of_Perdition wrote:
But, yes, Starbucks could easily bully their way into their desired outcome. This is a point well made. It might take balls to stand up to a cease and desist by claiming fair use.
I'd also point out that the shirt you're describing sounds a lot less like fair use, since the object of criticism isn't Starbucks, but rather some abstract "Corporate whore" (Starbucks may be "corporate" but it seems unlikely to be the "whore" in question since it is not an individual). The Starbucks logo is merely used as convenient in insulting some entirely unrelated entity.
Fair use generally requires that the transformative function of the art relate somehow to the original function of the art. So, you can criticize the art or the artist, but copying their art in order to make a critical statement about "society at large" has been ruled to not be related enough to the original art, and thus not be fair use.
Son_of_Perdition wrote:
For the record, abuse the of courts and the law doesn't create "solid ground".
But, yes, Starbucks could easily bully their way into their desired outcome. This is a point well made. It might take balls to stand up to a cease and desist by claiming fair use.
I'd also point out that the shirt you're describing sounds a lot less like fair use, since the object of criticism isn't Starbucks, but rather some abstract "Corporate whore" (Starbucks may be "corporate" but it seems unlikely to be the "whore" in question since it is not an individual). The Starbucks logo is merely used as convenient in insulting some entirely unrelated entity.
Fair use generally requires that the transformative function of the art relate somehow to the original function of the art. So, you can criticize the art or the artist, but copying their art in order to make a critical statement about "society at large" has been ruled to not be related enough to the original art, and thus not be fair use.
