>>108337068>>108338585Paralegal here, you are not entirely correct.
There's enough of a case here to establish a prima facie, but Ironmouse would still lose procedurally as she is a public figure and this would fall under fair use.
Unless under discovery it was found that the song creator declared their express intentions with the song to only intentionally harm Ironmouse's image, reasonable doubt would presume that it was made to parody to public figure, even if made in bad taste, a court would rule to dismiss.
Some arguments the defense would use to discredit the plaintiff:
l. Ironmouse has no established image to defame, due to constantly changing models.
ll. Ironmouse has also made parodies of other public persons, of which never received expressed consent to parody them.
lll. Ironmouse cannot claim copyright excludion when she expresses that fans can use her art publicly.
lV. Ironmouse has made humor and statements of a racial nature in the past.
V. Ironmouse cannot prove damages done to her brand done by this video, which weren't already a matter of public discourse over a public figure facing controversy and scrutiny.
These are just some examples on why Ironmouses case will proceed in the courts but will be dismissed in procedural process.
