▁two ▁works . ▁The ▁court ▁rejected ▁the ▁argument ▁that ▁any ▁similarity ▁between ▁the ▁works ▁involved ▁un prote ct able ▁sc ènes ▁à ▁faire , ▁or ▁standard ▁them es ▁common ▁to ▁any ▁dep iction ▁of ▁New ▁York . ▁ ▁Def enses ▁The ▁court ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁Moscow ▁on ▁the ▁Hudson ▁poster ▁was ▁not ▁a ▁par ody ▁because ▁it ▁was ▁not ▁meant ▁to ▁s ati ri ze ▁the ▁Stein berg ▁image ▁itself , ▁but ▁merely ▁s ati riz ed ▁the ▁same ▁concept ▁of ▁the ▁par och ial ▁New ▁York er ▁that ▁was ▁par od ied ▁by ▁Stein berg ' s ▁work . ▁Because ▁the ▁copy right ed ▁work ▁was ▁not ▁an ▁object ▁of ▁the ▁par ody , ▁the ▁appropri ation ▁of ▁the ▁image ▁was ▁not ▁fair ▁use . ▁ ▁The ▁defend ants ▁also ▁argued ▁that ▁Stein berg ▁was ▁esto pped ▁from ▁def ending ▁his ▁copy right ▁on ▁the ▁grounds ▁that ▁he ▁had ▁taken ▁no ▁action ▁over ▁a ▁period ▁of ▁eight ▁years ▁to ▁stop ▁others ▁from ▁counter fe iting ▁his ▁post ers ▁and ▁adapt ing ▁his ▁idea ▁to ▁other ▁locations , ▁and ▁had ▁not ▁acted ▁in ▁response ▁to ▁newspaper ▁ad s ▁prom oting ▁the ▁movie . ▁The ▁court ▁rejected ▁this ▁argument , ▁holding ▁that ▁the ▁defend ants ▁had ▁not ▁proved ▁any ▁of ▁the ▁elements ▁of ▁est opp el : ▁( 1 ) ▁a ▁representation ▁in ▁fact ; ▁( 2 ) ▁reasonable ▁reli ance ▁there on ; ▁and ▁( 3 ) ▁injury ▁or ▁damage ▁resulting ▁from ▁den ial ▁by ▁the ▁party ▁making ▁the ▁representation . ▁While ▁the