Plaintiff contended that defendant was motivated by commercial considerations. The court rejected this argument finding that the pictures were in the nature of an editorial or social commentary rather than an attempt to financially capitalize on plaintiff's property. In them, all defendants attempt to capitalize in some manner upon the original work. The first fair use factor normally looks at the use in the context of commercial exploitation. Of course, most consider obscenity the crudest form of commercial exploitation.
Problems arise because the subjective intent of the author becomes important.
The producer of obscenity would probably state that he creates art. In normal cases the scope of permissible fair use is greater with informational works due to the risk of restraining the free flow of information. But obscene parody takes from creative expression, not from informational works. If the second fair use factor is applied as in other cases, the rule would severly limit the use of obscene parody. The nature of obscenity renders the information-creative dichotomy obsolete.