Whether the alleged use is a ‘political statement’ or not, whether it is a ‘parody’, or not: the decision for someone to express themselves—whether quoting a news article, an opponent or the lyrics of a Pokemon song, we must remember it is the speech of the person who chooses to make it AND considerations of free speech and the First Amendment need to be taken into account. This needs to happen any time someone proposes a legal restriction on speech, whether through the laws of defamation, obscenity, rights of publicity, trademark, or copyright.
Just because copyright law is relevant in a particular instance doesn’t mean that we disregard free speech. We can’t make the mistake of thinking that copyright law provides us with a First Amendment-free zone, or that the basic ideals underpinning our laws are conditional, pro forma, or mere buzzwords.
Very little is original, much of life is a remix: Creating and transforming in the speech space is a desirable outcome with challenges to discern originality, ownership and purpose. Do not let the challenges stop you. #PowerfulWildFree4Art