Scribd
Upload
231 views1 page

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

The case involved whether 2 Live Crew's parody song 'Pretty Woman' infringed on the copyright of the original song 'Oh Pretty Woman' by Roy Orbison. The Supreme Court ruled that parody may claim fair use as criticism or comment, and that commercial use alone does not create a presumption of unfairness. The Court remanded the case to further evaluate the amount of copying in light of the song's parodic purpose and transformative elements.

Uploaded by

sdfoisaiofas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
231 views1 page

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

The case involved whether 2 Live Crew's parody song 'Pretty Woman' infringed on the copyright of the original song 'Oh Pretty Woman' by Roy Orbison. The Supreme Court ruled that parody may claim fair use as criticism or comment, and that commercial use alone does not create a presumption of unfairness. The Court remanded the case to further evaluate the amount of copying in light of the song's parodic purpose and transformative elements.

Uploaded by

sdfoisaiofas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Hannah Bernadette C.

Escudero Intellectual Property Law

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.


510 U.S. 569
Facts:

Acuff-Rose Music In. filed suit against Rap music group, 2 Live Crew and their record company.
It is claimed that 2 Live Crew’s song, “Pretty Woman”, infringed on the copyright of Acuff-Rose
in Roy Orbison’s rock ballad, “Oh Pretty Woman.”

The District Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair
use of the original song.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody
rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under 107; that, by taking
the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work, 2 Live Crew had, qualitatively,
taken too much under the third 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth 107
factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses.

Issue: Whether or not 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of
107.

Ruling:

Yes. The fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism or comment is not an
infringement. Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair use.

The following are factors in determining Fair Use:


1. purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or
is for non- profit educational purposes.
2. nature of the copyrighted work
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The Court of Appeals properly assumed that 2 Live Crew's song contains parody commenting on
and criticizing the original work, but erred in giving virtually dispositive weight to the commercial
nature of that parody by way of a presumption that "every commercial use of copyrighted material
is presumptively unfair." A work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry
into its purpose and character. The Court ruled that this runs counter to the long common law
tradition of fair use adjudication.

Even if 2 Live Crew's copying of the original's first line of lyrics and characteristic opening bass
riff may be said to go to the original's "heart," that heart is what most readily conjures up the song
for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim.

Moreover, 2 Live Crew thereafter departed markedly from the Orbison lyrics and produced
otherwise distinctive music. As to the lyrics, the copying was not excessive in relation to the song's
parodic purpose. As to the music, this Court expresses no opinion whether repetition of the bass
riff is excessive copying, but remands to permit evaluation of the amount taken, in light of the
Page III song's parodic purpose and character, its transformative elements, and considerations of
the potential for market substitution.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy