Quote: "After concluding that parody could be considered fair use, the Court quickly qualified its holding: if the new work “has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh,” the work is less transformative, and other fair use factors, such as whether the new work was sold commercially, loom larger. Id. at 580. The Court explained further that while a parody targets and mimics the original work to make its point, a satire uses the work to criticize something else, and therefore requires justification for the very act of borrowing. See id. at 581. As a result, the Court appears to favor parody under the fair use doctrine, while devaluing satire. "
Quote: "A parody that more loosely targets an original than the parody presented here may still be sufficiently aimed at an original work to come within our analysis of parody. If a 3parody whose wide dissemination in the market runs the risk of serving as a substitute for the original or licensed derivatives . . . , it is more incumbent on one claiming fair use to establish the extent of transformation and the parody’s critical relationship to the original. By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation of the original work, the new work’s minimal distribution in the market, the small extent to which it borrows from the original, or other factors, taking parodic aim at an original is a less critical factor in the analysis, and looser forms of parody may be found to be fair use, as may satire with lesser justification for the borrowing than would otherwise be required."
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf
You may want to check out the above. I'm no lawyer, and a lot of the information in the above link is somewhat abstract, but it's an interesting read and may shed some light on what would be discussed if legal action were ever taken by Wintendo. It'd also be good to read just for shoots and goggles.
I assume that The American Bar Association would be a pretty legitimate source of information.
Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
