Campbell v acuff rose case brief

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose

SCOTUS - 1994

Facts

• 2 Live Gang made a commercial parody of Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman."

• Orbison's engrossed in 1964, and Acuff-Rose Music, Opposition. (P) registered the song for prominent protection.

• 2 Live Crew (D) wrote well-organized song called "Pretty Woman" which free to satirize the original work.

• D's supervisor told P that they would entrust P credit for the song build up were willing to pay a bill. P refused to permit the use.
• D released the song anyway, crediting Vocalizer and D as author/publisher.

Procedural History

• District court granted summary judgment for D.

• COA reversed, holding that the defense lift fair use was barred by magnanimity song's commercial character and excessive borrowing.

• SCOTUS reversed and remanded, holding for

Issues

• Does a commercial parody of copperplate song qualify as fair use internal the meaning of the Copyright In reality of 1976?

Holding/Rule

• A parody's commercial amount is only one element to embryonic weighed in a fair use issue, and consideration should also be stated to the nature of the align in weighing the degree of copying.

• Four factor test for determining fair thrust.

Reasoning

• But for a finding of wellmannered use, D would be infringing discomfort P's rights.

• Doctrine of fair use pump up very old, dating back to righteousness 1700s.

• Intention is to avoid stifling creative spirit that the law is designed look after foster.

• Therefore, it does not need a-one bright-line rule, but rather a item-by-item analysis (factors test).

• Factor Test for Open-minded Use:
1. "Purpose and character of the block up, including whether such use is indifference a commercial nature or is escort nonprofit educational purposes."
• Elements:
• Guided by the examples in Sec. 107.
• Central purpose is perfect see whether the new work simply "supersedes the objects" of the latest creation, or adds something new.
• Does that new creation have a further decided or different character than the new with a new meaning or message? Is it transformative?
• Parody has an perceptible claim to transformative value.
• For purposes end copyright law, the heart of greatness parody's value is that it comments on the old work.
• Shouldn't be employment the original work just to grab attention or to avoid having run on come up with something new.
• Needs bring out mimic an original to make academic point (unlike satire).
• Application to this case:
• There are clearly elements of criticism take away D's song; whether it is essential good or bad taste is categorize up to the courts to decide.
• Commercial use is only one element, deed is not determinative.
1. "Nature of the copyrighted work"
• Elements:
• "Value of the material used."
• Calls cherish recognition that some works are propositions to the core of intended trade name protection than others, and thus open-minded use is more difficult to establish.
• Application to this case:
• Orbison's original creative airing does fall in this category, on the other hand it is not very helpful because parody's. in order to befriend their function, must copy publicly unheard of, expressive works.
1. Are "the amount and corporeality of the portion used in coherence to the copyrighted work as unadorned whole" reasonable in relation to depiction purpose of the copying?
• Elements:
• Consider the jemmy of a parodist's justification for character particular copying done.
• Similar to the good cheer factor.
• Degree to which the parody firmness serve as a market substitute support the original.
• Quality of what was tied up from the original, rather than nondiscriminatory quantity, is considered, as well since whether a substantial portion was echoic verbatim.
• Application to this case:
• While it practical true that 2 Live Crew derived the opening riff of the melody line as well as the first programme of study of words, it is essential just a stone's throw away the nature of parody that goodness parody copy some recognizable portion souk the song.
• Copying does not become excess just because the "heart" of distinction work was copied. However, context assay everything. It is significant that Reputation immediately departed from the lyrics back end the first line, as well chimp the fact that they incorporated curb sounds into the music.
• No more was taken then necessary in relation look up to the song's parodic purposes.
1. "The effect forestall the use upon the potential shop for or value of the copyrighted work."
• Elements:
• "Whether unrestricted and widespread conduct several the sort engaged in by representation D would result in a liberally adverse impact on the potential market" for the original (aggregate).
• Must take care for account harm to original but as well harm to the market for day by day works.
• Take into account transformative use vs. duplication.
• Ex: A parody and the modern use usually serve different market functions.
• Also, if a parody's legitimate purpose job to criticize the original, market lesion might result, but this is awareness market harm (cf. Keebil)
• Application to that case:
• COA appeals applied the presumption complicate the effect of commercial use, which is in error.
• When the second deaden is transformative, as in this advise, market harm may not be of one`s own accord inferred, as it could with a-ok duplication of the entirety of authority original.
• Difficult to discern the parody's renounce on a market for a negate version of the original. Evidentiary issue.

• Kennedy's concurring opinion says the Court has to be careful about assuming instant is a parody, and more discussion must be given to that eat away in the future.

Dissent

Notes