There is right now a quote attributed to Sarah Palin ("I can see Russia from my house") that she never actually said; it was Tina Fey portraying her in a Saturday Night Live skit. But if Palin decided to take NBC to court, she'd be thrown out on her ear. Why? Because parody and satire are highly protected in the American legal system. Lohan would have to prove beyond all doubt that the likeness is deliberate and close enough in resemblance to be confused for her. Unless the character has the distinctive tattoos she does, I doubt she'd get far.Loki_The_Good said:Using a likeness as satire ... So if she wins this does that mean that SNL will be forced off the air?
In modelling these days, if they can't see your back from your front, you're too fat.Elias Islas Rodriguez said:Holy crap, i just followed the link of Shelby Welinder... WHATS WRONG WITH THE MODELS NOW!!! WHERES THE... WHERES THE MEAT??!!! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO THE WOMAN BEAUTY
Loki_The_Good said:Using a likeness as satire ... So if she wins this does that mean that SNL will be forced off the air? seriously no one bought this game thinking it was backed by her likeness. How desperate for attention is she.
1337mokro said:I pity the lawyer that has to argue that case. "Satire should be made illegal!"
The argument is going to be based on the right of publicity [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_publicity], where an individual has a right to their own image for commercial purposes, similar to a trademark claim. Truthfully, her claim is going to be very difficult, as such laws tend to be narrowly construed to actual images of the person and not created images or references.Zachary Amaranth said:*snip*
It's interesting that you snip me so it now looks like I'm in accordance with the other posters.The Gentleman said:*snip*
You were claiming defenses (fair use parody[footnote]Funfact: Satire, because it is a broader commentary and doesn't require a specific reference, does not enjoy the same fair use protections as parody[/footnote]) that were in line with their understanding of what the claim would be. My point is that it's a different claim entirely and not subject to the defenses raised.Zachary Amaranth said:It's interesting that you snip me so it now looks like I'm in accordance with the other posters.The Gentleman said:*snip*