Why would you consider that to be an example of "fair use"? Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law I get "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

The band in question wouldn't be "forbidden" to make the cover, they would simply need to agree licensing terms with the copyright holder. That [licensing] sounds perfectly fair and reasonable to me, your "form of fair use" sounds like simple theft.

This is certainly the way I read it. I watched the video and almost as soon as Coyne started I felt my hackles rise. For a "scientist" he made a pathetic and childish argument, a sneering rant in fact.

If Jerry Coyne's the best science can come up with I'm going back to worshipping trees.

that everyone's patent laws were brought sharply up to date by restricting the term to TWO YEARS instead of the hugely anachronistic 20.