I find it difficult to imagine how anything that we would recognize as
a "parody" could ever substitute for the original. Perhaps what Justice
Souter had in mind was that anything that substitutes cannot be
considered parody, and so the question for the lower court is purely
definitional, with "substitution" being the Supremely approved criterion.
Vance R. Koven
Attorney at Law
Boston, MA
<koven[_at_]umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
Received on Fri Mar 18 1994 - 17:29:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT