I really thought it was a real in-universe Spidey/Felicia sextape, rather than a porn parody (video) within a porn parody (comic).
...pornparodyception?

Base +17, Deep in +5, ilovealltypes +7, Bonersman_616420🍤 +6

Due to lack of financial support, I may be soon stop producing all comics.

All income goes into the production of new stories, but because of public sharing, the number of supporters is falling and funds have not being enough to pay the artists.
So, if you enjoy them and would like those to keep coming out, please consider supporting them at:
http://www.patreon.com/tracyscops

Base +6, robertman2 +6, Deep in +5, ilovealltypes +7, Chunga +19, Higers +7, CuriousReader +6

Alright I won't stand for a porn comic spreading common misconceptions about American copyright law. There is NO specific clause that protects parody in fair use. There is a basis in case law for parody being a valid way to meet part of the fair use standard (as it is transformative, which on its own is not enough to be fair use but is required for fair use) but in that context parody specifically means ridicule in order to criticize the original work. So unless the porn parody includes criticism of the work it is parodying it is not actually a parody in the eyes of the law.
Porn parodies do have the advantage of not infringing on the market of the original work and generally being obviously unofficial which does let them reach about half the requirements for fair use. So if you can make a parody defense they are actually typically fair use. Now I still think the main reason porn parodies don't get taken down/sued over all that often is honestly primarily the fact that it's just not really worth the hassle, most big companies would probably win if they sued just on account of having better legal teams than porn companies, but since there's very little actual damages to claim there'd barely be a profit in it and it's not like porn parodies are an issue for most brands.

Base +6