mrwednesday wrote:Parody is required by law for use of intellectual property for profit.
Please state the precise US statute and relevant case law to support your assertion. I suspect that you cannot, because parody is only one possible fair use. There is no statute that calls out a requirement for parody to the exclusion of all other fair use.
This article, by an IP attorney, is a useful reference. In fact, the 5th paragraph explicitly calls out that there is not even a clear-cut line. The courts are stymied by parody vs fair use.
You'll note that the article points out there are 4 aspects when considering fair use, and only one of them is potential market effect, which is not exactly the same thing as profit.
mrwednesday wrote:If this shirt is made and Monty Python decides to sue, woot would have to prove...
I believe if you study the Terms & Conditions, it quite effectively shields Woot, its subsidiaries, etc from liability arising from copyright infrigement. I suspect it would be the artist that would need to defend a fair use claim.
mrwednesday wrote:AS stated many many many many many many times before, parody is a defense.
'a' being the operative word.
And, as I said, no where in the call for submissions did Woot require parody.
Moreover, nowhere in the original film did the Tim character conjure up a fiery rabbit. This image is a justoposition of the pyrotechnic effects created by that character, as well as his relation to the killer rabbit skit. Therefore it could easily be considered a commentary or reflection on how that justaposition affected and inspired the artist.