Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

themehboat t1_ix63602 wrote

Reply to comment by xantxant in Jack Daniel’s asks Supreme Court to hear dog toy dispute. Will they bite? by WREGnewschannel3

Right? No one is buying this dog toy and then getting upset that they can’t drink it. Or if they are, they’ve had enough to drink.

54

GabeTheJerk t1_ix6otu5 wrote

Or shouldn't be allowed to drink, vote or own a gun

7

tr00p3r t1_ix78bao wrote

No but they are buying it because it is related to Jack Daniels. If they want to make a toy alcohol bottle just use something completely made up... Oh wait. That's not funny so it won't sell.

−6

hiimsubclavian t1_ix7n5fj wrote

Yes, you've just described the definition of parody. Which happens to be protected by the first amendment.

5

tr00p3r t1_ix7p8z5 wrote

It's worth going to court. See examples at the bottom of this page: https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody#:~:text=A%20parody%20is%20fair%20use,which%20one%20work%20imitates%20another.

The toy doesn't seem to make fun or comment on the jack Daniels brand, it's just a copy with changes.

−5

micahatc t1_ix8mt7q wrote

It’s a copy with changes like not being a glass bottle that’s filled with liquid.

3