For their part, Theodore Geisel’s lawyers managed to do what you call almost impossible in response to The Cat Not in the Hat, a brilliant Dr. Seuss-esque parody of the O.J. trial. The theory, IIRC, was that the parody defense only works if the “stolen” work is the object of the derision, i.e., it’s fine to copy Charlie Brown to make fun of Charlie Brown (or other Peanuts characters, or Charles Schulz himself), but not to make fun of anyone else. This hair-splitting is justified (?) on the theory that no one will consent to be poked fun of (therefore it’s unreasonable to require consent in this narrow instance), but for a small royalty fee, everyone will gladly consent to having his works used to poke fun at someone else.

IP laws may not need the sweeping reforms Justin seems to be calling for, but between this and the Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 1998, they definitely are in need of some reform. As it stands, the rule appears to be that what Hollywood wants, Hollywood gets.