No. Abridged only uses portions of the footage of the original work and portions of the audio. They didn't just take the audio and replaced it, like you seem to suggest. They took portions of it and entirely reworked it into a transformative parody. And fair use protects the use of portions of the original work as long as its within the parameters of fair use. Of course, its perfectly possible for a court to rule it as outside of fair as fair use relies heavily on the analysis of every case, but it nowhere near as clear as you are saying.ImmaDeker wrote:
Discussed incorrectly. It's a "parody" wherein unlicensed intellectual property IS the bulk of said property. If they did their own DBZ animations, or sketches, or whatever, that'd be one thing. Fair Use constitutes stuff like using footage as the piece of, say, an academic presentation. Not "dubbing over the footage we don't own."
Dynaman had to be licensed. A TV studio couldn't have just DUBBED OVER DYNAMAN with no permission just because it was, technically, comedically intended commentary on aspects of Dynaman. TFS may not make direct revenue from usage of said footage, but they still have cultivated a brand identity (and revenue product) deriving from this unlicensed footage. They could not reasonably defend themselves.
Like I said, the main problem is actually defending your position against companies with deep pockets. "Sane" people just drop it instead of getting into a mess, no matter how defensible their position is.
