There are several replies here that mis-summarize, and this is one of them. Cory is munging together the concept that parody can be commercial with “you can use a parody in a commercial.”
To use the parody exception, the product you are selling must be the actual parody. i.e. you can sell a record of parody songs, or a book that clearly parodies another work.
But Goldieblox isn’t selling the parody, they are selling kids toys USING a work of parody.
The case law that makes this clear is Dr. Seuss v. Penguin - In 1997 the 9th Circuit found against the authors of a book satirizing the O.J Simpson trial whose work was a parody of “Cat in the Hat”. The court basically found that you need to be parodying the original work, not using that original work as a vehicle to parody a third party.
So, in summary - we could all go out and buy a GoldieBlox album featuring this song, but it’s much harder for GoldieBlox to use the song to sell something else.
