SIGNIFICANCE: CAMPBELL V. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC.

995
399

The fourth factor requires courts also to consider the potential market for derivative works. Parodies in general, the Campbell v. acuff-rose music said, will rarely substitute for the original work, since the two works serve different market functions. Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody. The commercial nature of a parody does not render it a presumptively unfair use of copyrighted material.

Luther Campbell v Acuff Rose Music, Inc.

The commercial nature of a parody does not render it a presumptively unfair use of copyrighted material. 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. United States Supreme Court case.

Luke Fresh Kid Ice Mr. The Court of Appeals's rule runs counter to Sony and to the long common law tradition of fair use adjudication. Marsh , 9 F. See Copyright Act of , 17 U. At issue in this case was the scope of the fair use provision of the Federal Copyright Act, which specifically permits unauthorized use of a work to criticize and comment upon the work. Universal City Studios, Inc. While Acuff-Rose found evidence of a potential "derivative" rap market in the very fact that 2 Live Crew recorded a rap parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" and another rap group sought a license to record a rap derivative, the Court found no evidence that a potential rap market was harmed in any way by 2 Live Crew's parodic rap version. 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. If the later work has cognizable substitution effects in protectable markets for derivative works, the law will look beyond the criticism to the work's other elements.

The commercial nature of a parody does not render it a presumptively unfair use of copyrighted material. When looking at the purpose and character of 2 Live Crew's use, the Court found that the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of the other three factors. While Acuff-Rose found evidence of a potential "derivative" rap market in the very fact that 2 Live Crew recorded a rap parody of "Oh, Pretty Campbell v. acuff-rose music and another rap group sought a license to record a rap derivative, the Court found no evidence that a potential rap market was harmed in any way by 2 Live Crew's parodic rap version. Rather, a parody's commercial character is only one element that should be weighed in a fair use inquiry. Views Read Edit View history. Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody. From Wikipedia, the free campbell v. acuff-rose music. The Court did find the third factor integral to the analysis, finding that the Court of Appeals campbell v. acuff-rose music in holding that, as a matter of law, 2 Live Crew copied excessively from the Orbison original. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

But that tells courts little about where to draw the line. The Court did find the third factor integral to the analysis, finding that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that, as a matter of law, 2 Live Crew copied excessively from the Orbison original.

This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis. 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. Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody. The Court of Appeals's rule runs counter to Sony and to the long common law tradition of fair use adjudication.

Parody & Fair Use Campbell v Acuff Rose Music, Inc

The commercial nature of a parody does not render it a presumptively unfair use of copyrighted material. United States Supreme Court case. If the later work has cognizable substitution effects in campbell v. acuff-rose music markets for derivative works, the law will look beyond the criticism to the work's other elements. Marsh9 F.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here