What makes these legal?

[Dascalargo]

Obviously there are T-shirts and bumper stickers out there that use the names of people, items, businesses, and products -- both real and fictional -- which do not require (or perhaps simply don't get) permission to use the name of said people, items, businesses, and products.

I know some are protected as satire, but clearly not all of them. Were, "My other car is the Millennium Falcon," or, "I break for tribbles," or, "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore," vetted by the respective copyright holders? It doesn't seem to me they're satire, or are they?

Along that theme, would the following be considered copyright infringement? Some I've seen while others are hypothetical.

1. A bumper sticker that said "What would Scooby Doo?" in a font reminiscent of the one used in the credits of the TV show.
2. A bumper sticker that says "Re-Elect Sheriff Andy Taylor" (or, for that matter, any other fictional political figure).
3. A T-Shirt for "Racer Xpress," referring to delivery at "the speed of Mach 5," clear references to Speed Racer.
4. A bumper sticker for "S.S. Minnow Island Charter," which refers to "Jonas Grumby, Skipper" and "Three hour tours," blatant Gilligan's Island references.
5. A T-shirt with the KFC logo, but adapted to read "Kentucky Friend Panda."
6. T shirts with the Coca-Cola and Pepsi logos with the names of the product replaced with "Jesus Christ."

Are these being used illegally or are they somehow protected?

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Did anyone say that all these examples were clearly lawful and not infringing? As Captain Jack Sparrow said to Will Turner: "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do." The law is a remedy that may be undertaken by intellectual property owners who feel they were wronged by an infringer. Whether they pursue that remedy is entirely up to them. Just because there isn't a lawsuit doesn't mean there isn't infringement. Perhaps the case hasn't been discovered by a potential plaintiff or it would take more effort than it's worth to bring suit. Perhaps the boundaries of fair use and expression are too gray for a clear victory or filing a suit might result in negative publicity. Perhaps you're seeing what might have been sold before the lawsuit was filed. Each case is different and whether use may fall into the "fair use" exception or freedom of expression is made on a case by case basis... savvy?

 

[Dascalargo]

Thanks, Prof. You make some very good points. I appreciate your time and insight.