Won't the plugblicity only serve to further the desire of those seeing them to crave and buy more BigMacs™ and Quarter Pounders™ with a few side orders of fries, sodas, and Chicken Nuggets™? I'm dreweling for 'em right now. Sounds like a win-win for MickyD's. Now esques me whilst I warms up me car.

"The fear of being eaten by a sandwich"- George Clinton
Comes to mind when I see the Mayor McCheese guy.

I think you guys have this all backwards ... this should be a discussion about the damage to the Black Sabbath brand!

quantumeffect
I think you guys have this all backwards ... this should be a discussion about the damage to the Black Sabbath brand!

Better groups have been parodied in much more over the top ways with no damage to brand.  I doubt this effects the legacy of anyone involved with Sabbath.  Hard to damage the rep of a group who's lead singer is known for biting off bat heads and reality tv. Roy Orbison's estate tried to sue @-Live Crew for a raunchy parody of "pretty woman" but it was literally laughed out of court since the jury erupted in laughter when lyrics were read.

dubdisciple

quantumeffect
I think you guys have this all backwards ... this should be a discussion about the damage to the Black Sabbath brand!

Better groups have been parodied in much more over the top ways with no damage to brand.  I doubt this effects the legacy of anyone involved with Sabbath.  Hard to damage the rep of a group who's lead singer is known for biting off bat heads and reality tv. Roy Orbison's estate tried to sue @-Live Crew for a raunchy parody of "pretty woman" but it was literally laughed out of court since the jury erupted in laughter when lyrics were read.

Actually, the issue in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994) that was addressed by the Supreme Court was pretty much limited to the holding that the trial court had erred by deciding that the parody issue could be decided primarily on the intent of the infringer to make money, rather than to criticize (one of the statutory fair use exceptions which has been extended to include certain parodies) the original song. That same decision, which is popularly held as being a blanket defense of parody, includes this:
 
"The fact that parody can claim legitimacy for some appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or judge much about where to draw the line. Like a book review quoting the copyrighted material criticized, parody may or may not be fair use, and petitioner's suggestion that any parodic use is presumptively fair has no more justification in law or fact than the equally hopeful claim that any use for news reporting should be presumed fair, see Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 561"

slartabartfast

dubdisciple

quantumeffect
I think you guys have this all backwards ... this should be a discussion about the damage to the Black Sabbath brand!

Better groups have been parodied in much more over the top ways with no damage to brand.  I doubt this effects the legacy of anyone involved with Sabbath.  Hard to damage the rep of a group who's lead singer is known for biting off bat heads and reality tv. Roy Orbison's estate tried to sue @-Live Crew for a raunchy parody of "pretty woman" but it was literally laughed out of court since the jury erupted in laughter when lyrics were read.

Actually, the issue in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994) that was addressed by the Supreme Court was pretty much limited to the holding that the trial court had erred by deciding that the parody issue could be decided primarily on the intent of the infringer to make money, rather than to criticize (one of the statutory fair use exceptions which has been extended to include certain parodies) the original song. That same decision, which is popularly held as being a blanket defense of parody, includes this:
 
"The fact that parody can claim legitimacy for some appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or judge much about where to draw the line. Like a book review quoting the copyrighted material criticized, parody may or may not be fair use, and petitioner's suggestion that any parodic use is presumptively fair has no more justification in law or fact than the equally hopeful claim that any use for news reporting should be presumed fair, see Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 561"

Actually, I was not using this as a sample of precedence  of fair use.  It is often cited in classes on fair use, but not my intent,  since there are better examples. My point in mentioning this case was directly addressing a concern about brand damage. I doubt the song in question did any damage to Orbison's name or reputation. I suppose a more closely related example would be the great "Weird Al" Yankovic, who has made a career  out of parody without damaging anyone's career. It can even be argued that his songs often bring attention to songs to people unlikely  to listen to original  on their own. Sales of Coolio's "Gangstas Paradise" had a spike in sells when "Amish Paradise" became popular despite Coolio's public disdain. Nobody would confuse Coolio and Weird Al and I doubt anyone would possibly confuse this group and Sabbath. McDonalds may have a stronger case for brand damage since the lyrics all seem to be somewhat of their product, but the case is hardly a slam dunk and not worth it to create free publicity for some bar band and coming off as the big evil corp.

Ah, a band thread.  I thought this might be about Bapu's new avatar.  My bad.