[bdowling]

Why do they have to use actual companies’ exact names and logos to make their parody, which someone could confuse for a real product? Can’t they use slight variations (e.g., McDowels to parody McDonalds)? Wouldn’t everyone still know who they were referring to?

Edit: Yes, this is satire, not parody, and satire needs to clearly identify its target to work properly. Here, however, the target of the satire appears to be carbon offset sellers, as a farcical “life offset” seller. The companies in question are linked as mere “supporters” of the satirical service; they don’t appear to be the direct target of the satire.

[myrmidon]

Because it would ruin the whole point.

Satire aims to evoke an emotional response, to point out moral failures and inconsistencies as crassly as possible.

Social criticism that first and foremost avoids offending anyone is a waste of paper in my opinion always.

[Gibbon1]

A suggestion for California would be to update it's SLAPP law to include fraudulent DCMA take down actions. Best would be make both the carrier and the entity filing the DCMA complaint equally liable.

[echelon]

It's still trademark infringement and both the activists and the middlemen (Netlify, in this case) can be sued.

This "satire" all comes across as "I'm 14 and this is deep." We get the joke. Just use a fictitious logo.

[myrmidon]

No it's not. There are trademark exemptions for satire/parody, and have been for a long time.

Sure the companies could have sued, but chances would have been about exactly 0% for those companies to win the case against the EFF on the back of their trademarks, and they knew that very well (my opinion), that case would've probably just been dismissed immediately.

[skeaker]

You not finding it amusing doesn't mean it should be illegal.

[sitkack]

Please give up in private and not spread your apathy across the internet.

[echelon]

Just because you believe in the cause of these activists, doesn't mean this isn't a two-way street.

Watering down trademarks opens the can of worms for all forms of trademark abuse by all kinds of parties:

https://www.businessinsider.com/proud-boys-trump-march-dc-co...

[int_19h]

This isn't an example of parody or satire.

[bastawhiz]

People use parody names because they're afraid of getting sued, not because they have to. If the purpose of your website is activism, why water it down?

[bluGill]

Because trademark law is complex and you can be sued for using real trademarks if anyone could think this was real and not a parody. Generally using obvious parody names gets the point across better anyway.

[bastawhiz]

It's actually not that complex. They're not misrepresenting themselves as the brands. They're not in the same industry as the brands. The standard is not "if anyone could think this was real".

[tdhoot]

I wouldn't be so sure. Jack Daniels sued (and won) against a maker of dog toys that looked like Jack Daniels but were named "Bad Spaniels". Turns out trademark law actually is complex.

https://www.today.com/food/news/jack-daniels-dog-toy-supreme...

[amiga386]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel%27s_Properties,_In...

Jack Daniels won because the maker of the dog toys were selling them, and wanted a trademark themselves.

Here we're talking about activists making non-commercial parody usage; the EFF's letter already mentions the Lanham Act, and let us add to that the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_Dilution_Revision_Ac...) which adds an express fair-use defense for noncommercial use.

[serf]

there are behaviors that are avoided not simply because they're allowed or disallowed, but because they'll likely generate trouble regardless of the outcome.

poking at a corporation for the sake of legal infringement is still likely to require a lawyer in place to defend against the non-sense, even if it won't hold in court. There is a lot of stuff like this -- you generally don't poke sleeping bears even if you're sure they won't awaken.

[bastawhiz]

They're activists: their point is literally to cause trouble

[naught0]

They shouldn't have to. Is silencing criticism with the threat of a frivolous lawsuit preferable to you?

They feature human babies in test tubes on this page: https://repaer.earth/about

To me, it's obvious parody

[ravenstine]

Would the film Idiocracy have been as funny if instead of making fun of Costco, Starbucks, and Carls Jr., they referred to them as Costinc, Sunbucks, and Carlos Sr.?

Parody doesn't necessarily require that you make significant alterations to a symbol or name. Only imbeciles would think that the fictional "Fuck you - I'm eating" slogan actually represents the Carls Jr. company in real life.

[xbar]

Limiting parody by preventing trademarks is a terrible way to limit free speech. It is a slippery slope.

[sowbug]

Imagine The Onion but using only fake company names in its articles.

See also "satire is dead" meme.

[hshshshshsh]

> Why do they have to use actual companies’ exact names and logos to make their parody, which someone could confuse for a real product?

So what?