Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

Decision Date07 March 1994
Docket NumberNo. 92-1292.,92-1292.
PartiesCAMPBELL, AKA SKYYWALKER, ET AL. <I>v.</I> ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Respondent Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., filed suit against petitioners, the members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew and their record company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song, "Pretty Woman," infringed Acuff-Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh, Pretty Woman." The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song. See Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U. S. C. § 107. 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.

Held: 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107. Pp. 574-594.

(a) Section 107, which provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism [or] comment . . . is not an infringement . . .," continues the common-law tradition of fair use adjudication and requires case-by-case analysis rather than bright-line rules. The statutory examples of permissible uses provide only general guidance. The four statutory factors are to be explored and weighed together in light of copyright's purpose of promoting science and the arts. Pp. 574-578.

(b) Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair use. Under the first of the four § 107 factors, "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . . .," the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work. But that tells courts little about where to draw the line. Thus, like other uses, parody has to work its way through the relevant factors. Pp. 578-581.

(c) 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, ostensibly culled from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U. S. 417, 451, that "every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively . . . unfair. . . ." The statute makes clear that a work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character, and Sony itself called for no hard evidentiary presumption. The Court of Appeals's rule runs counter to Sony and to the long common-law tradition of fair use adjudication. Pp. 581-585.

(d) The second § 107 factor, "the nature of the copyrighted work," is not much help in resolving this and other parody cases, since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works, like the Orbison song here. P. 586.

(e) The Court of Appeals erred in holding that, as a matter of law, 2 Live Crew copied excessively from the Orbison original under the third § 107 factor, which asks whether "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" are reasonable in relation to the copying's purpose. 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 song's parodic purpose and character, its transformative elements, and considerations of the potential for market substitution. Pp. 586-589.

(f) The Court of Appeals erred in resolving the fourth § 107 factor, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work," by presuming, in reliance on Sony, supra, at 451, the likelihood of significant market harm based on 2 Live Crew's use for commercial gain. No "presumption" or inference of market harm that might find support in Sony is applicable to a case involving something beyond mere duplication for commercial purposes. The cognizable harm is market substitution, not any harm from criticism. As to parody pure and simple, it is unlikely that the work will act as a substitute for the original, since the two works usually serve different market functions. The fourth factor requires courts also to consider the potential market for derivative works. See, e. g., Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539, 568. If the later work has cognizable substitution effects in protectible markets for derivative works, the law will look beyond the criticism to the work's other elements. 2 Live Crew's song comprises not only parody but also rap music. The absence of evidence or affidavits addressing the effect of 2 Live Crew's song on the derivative market for a nonparody, rap version of "Oh, Pretty Woman" disentitled 2 Live Crew, as the proponent of the affirmative defense of fair use, to summary judgment. Pp. 590-594.

972 F. 2d 1429, reversed and remanded.

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 596.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Bruce S. Rogow argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Alan Mark Turk.

Sidney S. Rosdeitcher argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Peter L. Felcher and Stuart M. Cobert.*

JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are called upon to decide whether 2 Live Crew's commercial parody of Roy Orbison's song, "Oh, Pretty Woman," may be a fair use within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U. S. C. § 107 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). Although the District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the defense of fair use barred by the song's commercial character and excessive borrowing. Because we hold that a parody's commercial character is only one element to be weighed in a fair use enquiry, and that insufficient consideration was given to the nature of parody in weighing the degree of copying, we reverse and remand.

I

In 1964, Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote a rock ballad called "Oh, Pretty Woman" and assigned their rights in it to respondent Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. See Appendix A, infra, at 594. Acuff-Rose registered the song for copyright protection.

Petitioners Luther R. Campbell, Christopher Wongwon, Mark Ross, and David Hobbs are collectively known as 2 Live Crew, a popular rap music group.1 In 1989, Campbell wrote a song entitled "Pretty Woman," which he later described in an affidavit as intended, "through comical lyrics, to satirize the original work. . . ." App. to Pet. for Cert. 80a. On July 5, 1989, 2 Live Crew's manager informed Acuff-Rose that 2 Live Crew had written a parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman," that they would afford all credit for ownership and authorship of the original song to Acuff-Rose, Dees, and Orbison, and that they were willing to pay a fee for the use they wished to make of it. Enclosed with the letter were a copy of the lyrics and a recording of 2 Live Crew's song. See Appendix B, infra, at 595. Acuff-Rose's agent refused permission, stating that "I am aware of the success enjoyed by `The 2 Live Crews', but I must inform you that we cannot permit the use of a parody of `Oh, Pretty Woman.'" App. to Pet. for Cert. 85a. Nonetheless, in June or July 1989,2 2 Live Crew released records, cassette tapes, and compact discs of "Pretty Woman" in a collection of songs entitled "As Clean As They Wanna Be." The albums and compact discs identify the authors of "Pretty Woman" as Orbison and Dees and its publisher as Acuff-Rose.

Almost a year later, after nearly a quarter of a million copies of the recording had been sold, Acuff-Rose sued 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records, for copyright infringement. The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew,3 reasoning that the commercial purpose of 2 Live Crew's song was no bar to fair use; that 2 Live Crew's version was a parody, which "quickly degenerates into a play on words, substituting predictable lyrics with shocking ones" to show "how bland and banal the Orbison song" is; that 2 Live Crew had taken no more than was necessary to "conjure up" the original in order to parody it; and that it was "extremely unlikely that 2 Live Crew's song could adversely affect the market for the original." 754 F. Supp. 1150, 1154-1155, 1157-1158 (MD Tenn. 1991). The District Court weighed these factors and held that 2 Live Crew's song made fair use of Orbison's original. Id., at 1158-1159.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. 972 F. 2d 1429, 1439 (1992). Although it assumed for the purpose of its opinion that 2 Live Crew's song was a parody of the Orbison...

To continue reading

Request your trial
615 cases
  • Radiance Found., Inc. v. Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • April 24, 2014
    ...Dr. Seuss Enter., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 924 F. Supp. 1559, 1567 n.6 (S.D. Cal. 1996) (referencing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 580 (1994)). The Fourth Circuit has previously held:For trademark purposes, a "parody" is defined as a simple form of entertainment ......
  • Kihn v. Bill Graham Archives, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • April 10, 2020
    ...to avoid copyright infringement claim has burden to establish that affirmative defense); Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590–94 & n. 20, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994) (defendant bore the burden on fair use defense to copyright infringement); Columbia Pictures Indu......
  • Soc'y of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Denver
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • August 2, 2012
    ...burden as to another defense, claiming his reproductions of the Works constitute fair use. See Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 590, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994) (stating “fair use is an affirmative defense” for which its proponent bears the burden). Fair use “cre......
  • Straus v. Dvc Worldwide, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • March 23, 2007
    ...the fair use determination depends on the totality of the factors considered." Id. (citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 584, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994); Sundeman v. Seajay Soc.'y, Inc., 142 F.3d 194, 203 (4th DVC used the unauthorized photograph on its websi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
52 firm's commentaries
  • Transformation' Of Fair Use Back To Its Section 107 Roots
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 21, 2015
    ...(9th Cir. 2013). 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990) Id. at 1111. Id. Id. (emphasis added). Id. Id. (emphasis added). Id. Id. 17 U.S.C. §106. 510 U.S. 569 510 U.S. at 579. A recent example of a work not being deemed "transformative" but nevertheless qualifying under the first Section 107 factor i......
  • The 'Transformation' Of Fair Use After Prince v. Cariou
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 14, 2014
    ...based on preexisting copyrighted material. Footnotes 1 17 U.S.C. § 107. 2 Prince v. Cariou, 784 F. Supp. 2d 337, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). 3 510 U.S. 569 (1994). 4 Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013). 5 682 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2012). 6 510 U.S. at 582. 7 Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 ......
  • Traditional Intellectual Property Law Still Applies In The NFT World
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 10, 2023
    ...first factor, courts have also considered whether the use is transformative. In the 1994 Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court analyzed the purpose and character of the use in large part by examining whether the use "merely superseded t......
  • The Role of Parody in Copyright: is a New Wind Blowing?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 6, 2002
    ...an article in the Harvard Law Review, and as thereafter adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (114 S. Ct. 1164) (1994); (3) whether or not the "parody" defense, previously applied only in music and photography cases, extends to the us......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
158 books & journal articles
  • Damages in Dissonance: The 'Shocking' Penalty for Illegal Music File-Sharing
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 39-3, May 2011
    • May 1, 2011
    ...not wrongfully appropriated any of the thirty copyrighted songs because those songs were ―free mp3 325 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994); A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1015 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579). 326 Campbell, 510 ......
  • COPYRIGHT AS LEGAL PROCESS: THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN COPYRIGHT LAW.
    • United States
    • April 1, 2020
    ...Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 941 (2005) (developing a standard of liability for inducement of infringement); Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994) (developing a "transformative use" defense within the fair use context); Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693......
  • DISCOVERING EBAY'S IMPACT ON COPYRIGHT INJUNCTIONS THROUGH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 64 No. 5, April 2023
    • April 1, 2023
    ...(24.) See id. at 392-93 (first citing N.Y. Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483, 505 (2001) (citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. Inc., 510 U.S. 569. 578 n.10 (1994)); and then citing Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Ass'n, 209 U.S. 20, 23-24 (1908)); see also Samuelson, supra note 9, at 783-86, 799-......
  • Possible Futures of Fair Use
    • United States
    • University of Whashington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 90-2, December 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...earlier draft from Judge Pierre Leval, as well as from Jessica Litman, Lydia Loren, Corynne McSherry, Tony Reese, and Rebecca Tushnet. 1. 510 U.S. 569 (1994). 2. See, e.g., Laura Quilter, How Parodies Transformed Fair Use, Copyright and Info. Pol'y (Feb. 23, 2015), http://blogs.umass.edu/lq......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT