I wrote on Monday that GoldieBlox’s parody of the Beastie Boys song “Girls” was a a “clear case” of copyright infringement.

As Felix Salmon pointed out (ADDING: and Shane Ferro, I should say), that overstated the legal argument quite a bit—it’s rarely clear on much involving copyright and fair use claims.

I do still think GoldieBlox’s actions were egregious enough and in such bad faith that it would lose if this case ever went to trial. It won’t: The toy company has re-made the offending ad without the Beastie Boys music and the band is not stupid enough to risk another round of the kind of awful PR it already, unfairly, received. But that would depend on a judge’s interpretation of the inherently murky fair-use law.

Rachel Sklar argues that GoldieBlox’s ad was indeed fair use and breaks down her case under the four factors judges must use to resolve fair use disputes. “Is GoldieBlox’s song a transformative piece of social commentary or a cheap toy ploy? I come down for GoldieBlox here, as the Court did for 2 Live Crew in ‘94,” she writes, saying the decision “held that their commercial parody was fair use despite being commercial.”

Sklar’s a lawyer and I’m not, so watch as I step out on this limb.

But the court explicitly said that it did not decide that 2 Live Crew’s parody was fair use—it said it “may be a fair use.” Souter’s opinion found that the Court of Appeals had ruled improperly because it considered the commercial nature of the recording to the exclusion of all other factors, writing that “It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew’s parody of ‘Oh, Pretty Woman’ rendered it presumptively unfair… While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew’s song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree.”

It then sent the case back down to the Court of Appeals to decide—based on all the factors—whether it was fair use. The appeals court never got to revisit the case, though, because 2 Live Crew settled with Orbison out of court, agreeing to pay to license the song—something Orbison’s estate had initially refused to allow.

The Souter opinion did find that 2 Live Crew’s rewriting of Orbison’s lyrics was fair use. There’s no question that GoldieBlox’s rewritten lyrics were fair use, as well. The key point is whether its use of the music, which it made to sound as close to the original as possible for nearly two minutes, was fair use. That’s pushing things, to say the least.

The Court said in Campbell that “we express no opinion whether repetition of the bass riff is excessive copying, and we remand to permit evaluation of the amount taken, in light of the song’s parodic purpose and character, its transformative elements, and considerations of the potential for market substitution sketched more fully below.”

Critically, though, 2 Live Crew’s commercial use was an artist recording a song to sell an album, and that’s quite a bit different than a corporation recording a song to sell its toys.

As Felix pointed out, Souter explicitly wrote “The use, for example, of a copyrighted work to advertise a product, even in a parody, will be entitled to less indulgence under the first factor of the fair use enquiry than the sale of a parody for its own sake, let alone one performed a single time by students in school.”

Ryan Chittum is a former Wall Street Journal reporter, and deputy editor of The Audit, CJR's business section. If you see notable business journalism, give him a heads-up at rc2538@columbia.edu.