Intellectual Property Rights

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

510 U.S. 569 (1994)

Facts

Acuff-Rose owned copyright in Roy Orbison’s song “Oh, Pretty Woman.”
The rap group 2 Live Crew created a song titled “Pretty Woman.”
Their version copied the original’s opening bass riff and first line but then introduced different lyrics and a comic, vulgar treatment.
The group sought a licence, which Acuff-Rose refused.
It nevertheless released the song commercially.
Acuff-Rose sued for copyright infringement.
The Court of Appeals held that the use was presumptively unfair because it was commercial and had copied the heart of the original.
The United States Supreme Court reviewed the application of the four fair-use factors.

Fair use requires a case-specific examination of:
purpose and character;
nature of the work;
amount and substantiality;
market effect.
A transformative use adds a new purpose, meaning or message.
Parody may be transformative because it comments upon the original.
Commerciality is relevant but does not create an automatic presumption against fair use.
A parody may copy enough to make its target recognisable.
Market harm cannot be presumed merely because the use is commercial, especially where the new work serves a different purpose.

The Court found that 2 Live Crew’s song could reasonably be understood as commenting on the original.
It juxtaposed the romantic idealism of Orbison’s song with a crude and comic description.
The parody needed to borrow the famous opening line and riff so listeners would recognise its target.
The Court rejected the lower court’s treatment of commerciality as decisive.
Most publications, including criticism and commentary, have some commercial aspect.
The important question was whether the new song merely superseded the original or added a different expression and purpose.
The parody’s transformative character substantially favoured fair use.
The original song was creative, which favoured Acuff-Rose, but this factor was of limited importance because parody normally targets expressive works.
2 Live Crew copied important parts, but the amount had to be judged in relation to the parodic purpose.
Taking the “heart” may be reasonable where that is what makes the original recognisable.
The group then departed from the original and created new lyrics and music.
Regarding market effect, a parody does not ordinarily replace demand for the original because it serves a different audience and purpose.
Possible harm caused by criticism is not legally cognisable market harm.
However, the record did not fully address whether the rap version harmed a legitimate market for non-parodic rap adaptations.
The Court therefore remanded rather than finally entering judgment for either side.

The Supreme Court held that commercial parody is not presumptively unfair.
Transformative purpose, justified borrowing and actual market substitution must be examined carefully.
The Court reversed the lower court’s adverse fair-use analysis and remanded for further proceedings.
Use this case for: a transformative parody may fairly use recognisable elements of an original even for commercial purposes.