Quote:
Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions
You should send that link to nearly all of the companies who have been putting out parodies in recent years. 
I've argued countless times on here that adding "XXX," "This Ain't..." or "A XXX Parody" to the title of a flick, but then doing nothing but including sex in an abbreviated version of the original script isn't a parody. The recent ones don't even bother to make puns out of the character's names, let alone comment on, criticize or ridicule the originals. Bring me the good old days of porn parodies like "Texas Dildo Masquerade," "A Clockwork Orgy," and "Pulp Friction." |
Again, this isn't a parody by any stretch of the imagination, in a legal sense. Using someones registered marks to wrap around standard E European run of the mill photos or videos of nude girls has nothing to do with ridiculing Home Depot. If you think it is parody, then you have no idea what parody means and its pointless to keep pointing this out to you.
Furthermore, the question is of legal risk and of what will ultimately have to be argued in court while facing a 7 or 8 or 9 figure lawsuit... what others have gotten away with is irrelevant to the very real risks.
The only question that matters is "What will Home Depot executives, shareholders and IP Attorneys think". The answer to that should be obvious to anyone.
The answer to that question will determine whether or not you end up being served a massive lawsuit.