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.
O.J. Simpson doesn’t sound like he has anything to do with the work of Dr. Seuss. Just because you make a derivative work doesn’t mean it’s a “parody”. Taking someone’s message, like girls doing laundry, and making a parody where the song instead empowers girls by claiming they’re capable of becoming great engineers is parody. I fail to see attaching an advertisement to a parody stops it from being one.
