Well as I said earlier, the way I choose to look at this issue is simply about what is fair in my mind, not what is legal. Having said that, I realize it is a legal issue and I sure hope Henley prevails here because I believe that there does need to be legal protection for artists in cases like these, particularly when it comes to political campaigns. I’m certainly not an attorney, but I’ll try to weigh in on this as much as my little brain can comprehend.
First of all, let me say that I believe in both the spirit of copyright protection and fair use of intellectual property. The two principles should be able to co-exist, but like most things, boundaries have to be established. I have faith in the ability of our judicial system to sort out conflicts whenever these two concepts collide.
With regard to the issue of parody vs. satire – I agree with the precedent that the courts have established, and am hopeful that Henley should prevail here.
Now about the Lanham Act and fair use, I’m not sure how this will be handled in this case. However, if I understand this correctly, I’m not sure I agree with analogy the author draws to what Henley is claiming. It’s true that anyone can claim to be ‘strongly identified’ with a piece of intellectual property. However, I believe that the burden of proof is on them. In order to be legally protected by copyright laws, wouldn’t they have to prove their strong association to the court?