As I understand the trademark fair-use parody, though (as distinct from copyright fair-use parody), the parody must comment on the original work and not solely have been created for commercial gain.

From an article on Trademark Parody written by a Florida IP firm:

“Even absent confusion evidence a Washington District Court rejected a parody defense in the “Hard Rock Cafe” case. A Washington State maker of transfers for tee shirts created a design with the words “hard rain” in the center of a circle with the word “cafe” under them. The design was essentially identical to the “Hard Rock Cafe” logo which the defendant admitted was famous. The defendant claimed that the design was intended only as a parody on the plaintiff’s design, a parody which tourists to Washington State would find humorous because of the almost constant hard rain that falls in Washington. The court rejected this argument, saying that the copying was not slight nor the subject social commentary. Although the court did not use the word “misappropriation”, it stressed that virtually the entire Hard Rock Cafe logo had been used, solely for commercial gain.”

(http://www.lfiplaw.com/articles/trademark_parody.htm)

The T-shirts and other merchandise I see marketed in various LDS-aimed catalogs–including that of Deseret Book–strike me as misappropriation for gain as defined above. The copying is not slight, nor the social commentary directed at the original work.

Of course, the courts’ opinions are subjective to a degree.

As I said, my knowledge is second-hand, gleaned from 20 years of marriage to someone who feeds our family through defense of intellectual property rights.

Are you suggesting that the derivative works aren’t covered by fair use as a parody? If so, what’s your rationale?

It’s not just churchy products that do things like that (heck, I’ve been known to do it myself), but there is something particularly distasteful about making a “holy” statement through such a crass medium as advertising.

I think the tinniness of borrowed culture (like Stripling Warrior tshirts etc) is what drives people away from hiqual Mormon culture. Just as the good can lead readers to the great, the lousy can lead them right out the door and back to BnN.

That said though, I don’t think similarities between “our” art and “their” art is necessarily bad. There’s is plenty of room to learn from each other and try things on for size. My main beef is with products (yes, ‘products’) that don’t know whether they are sincere or parodic and don’t care, so long as they turn a quick buck. That’s why artists like Sally DeFord are so refreshing: whether you like her stuff or not, she’s obviously not trying to milk us.

(I took my three-year-old son to see The General. He loved it.

)

One woman here in the boonies of Poland, is among the most faithful members I know and she’s never once read the Book of Mormon. She is blind, but I am almost positive she’s never even opened a copy, let alone learned the difference between Alma, Amulek, or Ammon. She still lives the gospel better than I think I do.

But then again, she’s not really big on silent film, either.

Do you really have to know the names of all of the sons of Mosiah, though? There’s Ammon and then the rest of those guys. You can understand and benefit from that section of the Book of Mormon without being able to name check them all.

Buster Keaton’s work, however. That’s a necessary education.