Okay, so then photoshop it to look like an Onion article, then post it on reddit and Facebook, and see how many people fall for it.
And hire a lawyer.
I’d love to see The Onion trying to sue someone for satirically emulating them, and trying to argue that it doesn’t fall under “fair use”. It’s like the movie Inception, but for satire.
Well, we know that if they do file a suit, it will be entertaining. (PDF)
But if I may be pedantic (and I’m pretty sure I can), “Fair Use” is a copyright issue. An action brought in this hypothetical case might be trademark infringement or defamation. Our resident lawyers will be along to amplify this, or tell me I’m all wrong.
Generally, we use ‘Fair Use’ about copyright, which this wouldn’t be.
There is fair use for trademarks as well, but this wouldn’t fall under that, either.
The point of fair use of trademarks is that other people get to use your logos or slogans but not in a deceptive way. For example, if you paste Ford logos all over your eBay page selling auto parts trying to imply you are endorsed by Ford or are some kind of authorized agent for them, that’s not a fair use of their trademark, especially as there is money involved. You could use one to indicate a particular part is for Fords, which wouldn’t raise a lot of red flags.
Using the Onion banner/branding but sticking your own article in would not be covered by fair use of trademark because you are trying to be deceptive. If you altered it so it became clear it was meant to be a parody or satire, that could fall under fair use.
The point is that trademark fair use does not cover outright deceptive uses of trademarks. Much of the point of parody/satire is the audience is (supposedly) savvy enough not to be tricked into thinking it’s for real. Yes, there are idiots out there, but the intent of parody is not to fool them. Using their branding in a deliberately deceptive way would be right out.
Satirizing The Onion would fall under the section of the legal code the prohibits the creation of universe-destabilizing paradoxes.
I’m just going to toss this here for now. Whether someone, be it genuinely or as part of a bad faith argument, asks for an example of white washing, here is a proposed change to Florida social studies text books.
It came from here and the linked article is paywalled, so I’m not sure what the rest of the story is.
The old textbook goes down the memory hole. DeSantis thinks 1984 was an instruction manual.
And I assume that if any of the kids ask, “Why was she told to move to a different seat?” Florida teachers will be forbidden to mention her race or anything about segregation.
“Oh, sometimes people are mean for no reason.”
“People who wore glasses got picked on back then.”
“Maybe she brought something stinky for lunch.”
Here’s a gift link to the article.
The details are pretty much what you would expect. A text book publisher created a separate version of its history text book that removed all mention of race in order to be acceptable in Florida. Although its actually a bit worse… There were actually three versions. Not shown in the tweet is the original version of the blub that makes it clear that what she was doing was against the law and she was arrested for it. This version went down the memory hole, with the other two possibilities in the tweet considered for Submission to Florida.
In the current lesson on Rosa Parks, segregation is clearly explained: “The law said African Americans had to give up their seats on the bus if a white person wanted to sit down.”
But in the initial version created for the textbook review, race is mentioned indirectly.
“She was told to move to a different seat because of the color of her skin,” the lesson said.
In the updated version, race is not mentioned at all.
“She was told to move to a different seat,” the lesson said, without an explanation of segregation.
It’s unclear which of the new versions was officially submitted for review. The second version — which doesn’t mention race — was available on the publisher’s website until last week.
You know, it seems like this is just going to cause confusion. I say we don’t even bring up Rosa Parks, as that could lead to awkward questions.
It’ll soon be Rose Parks. Rosa sounds Mexican.
A Teachers’ Guide–supplied by most textbook publishers along with a set of kids’ editions–will probably suggest answers to give to kids who ask why the heck Rosa Parks was asked to move to a different seat. (“A large party wanted to sit together and needed the seat she was in” and the like.)
Those answers will be in the back of the book of course.
“Somebody in the back of the bus was carsick and Rosa was kind enough to offer to trade places with them. This is why Rosa is remembered today.”
Loser Donald says it’s OK not to love your children.
I wonder which one stooged him out to the feds.
Ivanka.
Wow! He’s pissed off at least one of them. Here is my attempt at a transcription:
This was a prepared campaign video. Not an off the cuff remark.
I’m loving it!