According to Editor and Publisher, a new Act introduced in Congress will further protect the interests of trademark holders against their biggest foes - corporate whistle-blowers and indie-artists.

E&P Reports:

With only the most minimal notice in the mainstream press, the bill as it currently stands would remove three exceptions from part of the present trademark law:

--News reporting and commentary.

--Fair use.

--Non-commercial use.

Elimination of the news reporting and commentary protections would overnight put newspapers at much greater risk of trademark infringement actions being brought against them, for everything from a columnist’s or editorial writer’s ill-received reference to a company’s trademark, to, say, a news photograph of a homeless person’s shopping cart parked in front of a row of gleaming, readily identifiable new-model cars at the dealership of a well-known automaker.

Not to approach this issue with hysterics, but it seems like if there were issues with pastiche art transgressing the alleged rights of copyright holders before this Act, it's going to get a whole lot worse. Hope you didn't plan on making any cultural references to, for instance, Coca Cola, in a drawing, cartoon, etc., that you didn't vet with Coke's lawyers first.

And despite my usual slant towards priveledging creative expression in music, independent movies, and all other wags of art, removing the provision that protects people from getting sued for using trademarks for non-commercial use is only the second scariest part of this Act. Explicitly removing protections for news reporters? E&P continues:

Public Knowledge—a Washington, D.C. advocacy group working to defend consumers’ rights in the digital age (its board includes the likes of former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed E. Hundt)—says it fears that the bill “could negatively impact free speech, small business commercial speech, and repurpose traditional trademark law to protect business interests instead of consumers.”

Public Citizen’s Paul Alan Levy, says, “The ultimate question I keep coming back to is, what harm does it do to apply a defense for ‘news reporting’ or ‘fair use’ to infringement claims? I must say, I do not get it.”

I wish I didn't get it, Paul Alan Levy - the only impact that removing a protection for news writers has is to limit a writer's ability to publically criticize a product or company. It's bone-chilling.