Here's a link for the actual text of the bill in PDF form.

While there are exclusions for comparison advertising, criticism/parody, and "all forms of news reporting and news commentary", there is not an exclusion for coincidental inclusion of the trademark in an image of an event, person or object. So, I guess the concern to us centers around what constitutes criticism/parody and how "news reporting" is defined with respect to our area of interest. Regardless, it would seem that the deep-pocketed trademark owner is likely to win - along with the trial lawyers, of course.