Exodus International claims blogger Justin Watt violated copyright and trademark laws when he posted an image of a billboard which read “Straight? Unhappy? www.gay.com” on his blog as a parody of their “Gay? Unhappy? www.exodus.to” billboard ad campaign. ExGayWatch.com also posted the parody in February, and both Mike Airhart of Ex-Gay Watch and Justin Watt received a cease and desist letter last week.

Airhart said he removed the image as a “temporary precaution” after he received the letter and is seeking legal help.

“It is not our intent to break any law,” Airhart wrote in an e-mail interview with the Blade. “However, we also do not want to surrender our freedom of speech to the religious right.

“The ex-gay ads say, ‘Question Homosexuality.’ We say, ‘Question Exodus.’ Apparently the religious right does not like to be questioned.”

I don’t really get why Airhart was the only other blogger to receive a cease and desist letter (maybe there are others who are not mentioned?). Do you know how many bloggers posted this parody? I won’t name them (keep ’em from getting cease and desist letters too), but I’ve seen that parody on A LOT of blogs.

Some comments from Watt:

“My first reaction was, ‘Whoa, cool,'” said Watt of the cease and desist letter. “The act of them pursuing me this way [caused] the image to go on other websites so, oops!”

Watt said he created the image to speak out against Exodus’ “predatory” advertising. Exodus’ original billboard is as offensive as one that might proclaim, “Are you African-American? Unhappy?” Watt said.

“The only way I could think about communicating the opposite was by turning it on its head and giving them a dose of their own medicine,” Watt said.

Washington Blade offers this info on copyright law and trademark protection:

In copyright law there is a “fair use” defense, which covers parody. Parodies, by definition, make minimal changes to the original work but major message changes, said Christine Farley, associate professor of law at American University Washington College of Law.

“Parody usually fares well [in court cases],” Farley said.

Trademark protection is intended to prevent consumer confusion about who created the product, Farley noted.

“Are [viewers] confused by the relationship between this and Exodus ministries,” Farley asked. “It’s hard to see how that would be. The content is telling you, ‘I’m making fun of Exodus International.'”

Laura Quilter, associate counsel for the Brennan Center Free Expression Policy Project, agrees that the law is often on the side of protecting parody from these types of threats. Watt seems to have a “slam dunk” case, she said.

“In copyright law, there is clearly a fair use exemption for this kind of use,” she said. “Fair use allows copyright to coexist with the First Amendment.”

If the creators of material had an “absolute right of control, nobody could criticize the material [and] it would devastate the first amendment,” Quilter said.