The blackletter parody clause was deleted between 1990 and 2004... I'm not certain when... but Parody as a protected exception isn't actually blackletter law that I can find anymore. (I had to read the statutes/CFR in 1990 as part of a copyright coverage in my undergrad in Music. When I looked again, in about 2004, that clause was explicitly redacted.)
By "blackletter, I presume you mean specifically protected. There appears to still be some form of protection for parody as it is still occuring, but making sense of law is sometimes tricky.
(Caveat: I'm not a lawyer.)
17 USC 107: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
"The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors"
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music: "Section 107 ... continues the common law tradition of fair use adjudication and requires case by case analysis rather than bright line rules. The statutory examples of permissible uses provide only general guidance. The four statutory factors are to be explored and weighed together in light of copyright's purpose of promoting science and the arts ...
Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair use. Under the first of the four §107 factors, 'the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . . . ,'
the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is 'transformative,' altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message.
The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work."
Parody is protected, but not reflexively. You have to show a substantial change from the original, bringing a new message or meaning to the audience (such as occurred in that book that retold
Gone With The Wind from the slaves' perspective, or such as occurs regularly on Jon Stewart's Daily Show). There've been cases where works were not judged sufficiently different to qualify for parody protection.
As to whether this specifically is protected - I have to think that taking the man's work and seeking funny captions under the assumption that they are Vargr from a far future roleplaying game would qualify as fair use in this context: it evolves a substantial change, it does not affect the original's commercial value, and your work is not of a commercial nature. Try to market it though, and you might run into some problems; he can then argue that you're making money off of his labor and that your work potentially competes with his.
Besides, I'm not sure there's much of a market for Vargr motivational posters outside of the Vargr Extents.
