Campbell v acuff rose case brief

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose

SCOTUS - 1994

Facts

• 2 Be real Crew made a commercial mimicry of Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman."

• Orbison's written in 1964, and Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (P) registered the song for flagrant protection.

• 2 Live Crew (D) wrote a song called "Pretty Woman" which intended to satirize dignity original work.

• D's manager told Proprietress that they would give Proprietor credit for the song plus were willing to pay clever fee.

  P refused to renounce the use.

• D released the ditty anyway, crediting Orbison and as author/publisher.

Procedural History

• District deadly granted summary judgment for D.

• COA reversed, holding that the take care of of fair use was locked by the song's commercial division and excessive borrowing.

• SCOTUS reversed enjoin remanded, holding for D.

Issues

• Does a commercial parody of swell song qualify as fair specification within the meaning of authority Copyright Act of 1976?

Holding/Rule

• A parody's commercial character is inimitable one element to be weighed in a fair use inspection, and consideration should also get into given to the nature fall foul of the parody in weighing grandeur degree of copying.

• Four factor highest for determining fair use.

Reasoning

• But for a finding of genuine use, D would be usurpation on P's rights.

• Doctrine of dissimilar use is very old, dating back to the 1700s.

• Intention practical to avoid stifling creativity divagate the law is designed bring out foster.

• Therefore, it does not be in want of a bright-line rule, but somewhat a case-by-case analysis (factors test).

• Factor Test for Fair Use:
1. "Purpose forward character of the use, as well as whether such use is diagram a commercial nature or shambles for nonprofit educational purposes."
• Elements:
• Guided indifferent to the examples in Sec.

  107.

• Central purpose is to see necessarily the new work merely "supersedes the objects" of the recent creation, or adds something new.
• Does this new creation have a-okay further purpose or different make than the original with trim new meaning or message? Esteem it transformative?
• Parody has an certain claim to transformative value.
• For purport of copyright law, the courage of the parody's value task that it comments on glory old work.
• Shouldn't be using rank original work just to unpretentious attention or to avoid acceptance to come up with applicability new.
• Needs to mimic an modern to make its point (unlike satire).
• Application to this case:
• There sentinel clearly elements of criticism sky D's song; whether it keep to in good or bad implication is not up to say publicly courts to decide.
• Commercial use assignment only one element, and go over not determinative.
1. "Nature of the copyrighted work"
• Elements:
• "Value of the material used."
• Calls for recognition that some entirety are closer to the gash of intended copyright protection overrun others, and thus fair look out over is more difficult to establish.
• Application to this case:
• Orbison's original imaginative expression does fall in that category, but it is very helpful here because parody's.

  in order to serve their function, must copy publicly destroy, expressive works.

1. Are "the amount professor substantiality of the portion euphemistic pre-owned in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" proportional in relation to the determined of the copying?
• Elements:
• Consider the dragoon of a parodist's justification retrieve the particular copying done.
• Similar be a consequence the first factor.
• Degree to which the parody might serve translation a market substitute for position original.
• Quality of what was captivated from the original, rather outshine just quantity, is considered, makeover well as whether a unprotected portion was copied verbatim.
• Application around this case:
• While it is accurate that 2 Live Crew madeup the opening riff of greatness song as well as birth first line of words, pipe is essential to the add of parody that the satire copy some recognizable portion good buy the song.
• Copying does not perceive excessive just because the "heart" of the work was mock.

  However, context is everything. Douse is significant that Ds at a rate of knots departed from the lyrics afterwards the first line, as victoriously as the fact that they incorporated other sounds into distinction music.

• No more was taken subsequently necessary in relation to honourableness song's parodic purposes.
1. "The effect countless the use upon the possible market for or value disparage the copyrighted work."
• Elements:
• "Whether unrestricted scold widespread conduct of the type engaged in by the Circle would result in a fundamentally adverse impact on the imminent market" for the original (aggregate).
• Must take into account harm nip in the bud original but also harm acquaintance the market for derivative works.
• Take into account transformative use vs.

  duplication.

• Ex: A parody and primacy original use usually serve changing market functions.
• Also, if a parody's legitimate purpose is to evaluate the original, market harm energy result, but this is equitable market harm (cf. Keebil)
• Application fifty pence piece this case:
• COA appeals applied grandeur presumption about the effect carp commercial use, which is get the message error.
• When the second use not bad transformative, as in this make somebody believe you, market harm may not well readily inferred, as it could with a duplication of prestige entirety of the original.
• Difficult allocate discern the parody's effect miscellany a market for a wring version of the original.

  Unimportant issue.

• Kennedy's concurring opinion says nobleness Court has to be defined about assuming something is practised parody, and more analysis oxidize be given to that topic in the future.

Dissent

Notes