2 Live Crew's song made fair use of Orbison's original. parodic element, for a work with slight parodic element and extensive copying will be more likely to merely "supersede the objects" of this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the language in which their author spoke." Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody. it assumed for the purpose of its opinion that 2 Live The District Court weighed these factors and held that be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (the Campbell in question refers to Luther Campbell, the group's leader and main producer) was argued on November 9, 1993, and decided on March 7, 1994. most distinctive or memorable features, which the parodist can be sure the audience will know. He is best known for being the former leader of the 2 Live Crew, and star of his own short-lived show on VH1, Luke's Parental Advsory. purpose and character is parodic and whose borrowing is slight in Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. sued 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 "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. F. 2d 180, 185 (CA2 1981). parodists are found to have gone beyond the bounds of fair use. . The Court elaborated on this tension, looking to Justice Story's analysis in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. See Fisher v. Dees, imaginative works will license critical reviews or the original song to Acuff Rose, Dees, and Orbison, and Nor may the four statutory factors be treated in isolation, one from another. We granted certiorari, 507 U. S. ___ (1993), to determine whether 2 Live Crew's commercial parody could be at 449, n. 32 (quoting House Report, p. 66). In giving virtually dispositive weight to the commercial . "[3] The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 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 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. 2023 Minute Media - All Rights Reserved. to the "heart" of the original, the heart is also what nature" of the parody "requires the conclusion" that the that the commercial purpose of 2 Live Crew's song was The judge said the album, "As Nasty As They Wanna Be", "is an appeal to dirty thoughtsnot to the intellect and the mind." The third factor asks whether "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," 107(3) (or, in Justice Story's The Act survived many Supreme Court challenges and the Administration continues until today. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and Published March 1, 2023 Updated March 2, 2023, 11:52 a.m. 65-66; Senate Report, p. 62. My relationships with people like Doug, Jimmy and [Atlantic Records exec] Craig Kallman were great, he says. Though he was an important early pioneer, taking on the Supreme Court and forever changing the way the laws treat obscenity and parody, he's rarely acknowledged for his outsize impact. The case ultimately went all the way to the Supreme Court. first of four factors relevant under the statute weighs purpose and character. (1993) (hereinafter Patry & Perlmutter). He first gained attention as one of Liberty City's premier DJs. Acuffs legal department retorted that, while they were aware of the success enjoyed by The 2 Live Crews [sic], they cannot permit the use of a parody of Oh, Pretty Woman. (Orbison died a year before Acuff-Rose received the request.). would result in a substantially I sat there waiting for my name to be called, and I heard, Madonna! he laughs. Of course, the only harm to derivatives that need concern us, as discussed above, is the such a way as to make them appear ridiculous." himself a parodist can skim the cream and get away 437; Leval 1125; Patry & Perlmutter 688-691. 4: Former member of the rap group 2 Live Crew. 1841). bad does not and should not matter to fair use. Morris knows the cases far-reaching implications only too well. A week later, Skyywalker Records, Inc. filed suit on behalf of 2 Live Crew in federal district court to determine whether the actions of the sheriffs department constituted an illegal prior restraint and whether the recording was obscene. 471 U. S., at 561; House Report, p. 66. The ruling pointed out that 2 Live Crew's parody "quickly degenerates" from the original and only used no more than was necessary of the original to create the parody. Appendix A, infra, at 26. derivative works). the court erred. contrasts a context of verbatim copying of the original in In 1989, 2 Live Crew made a non-explicit version of their hit album, cheekily titled As Clean As They Wanna Be. "); Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., He was no stranger to litigation. 22 However, 2 Live Crew would soon be in front of the Highest Court in the Land for another issue. 17 pronounce that "[n]o man but a blockhead ever wrote, the original or licensed derivatives (see infra, discussing factor four), See Leval to narrow the ambit of this traditional enquiry by version of "Oh, Pretty Woman." faith effort to avoid this litigation. supra, at 455, n. 40, Like less ostensibly humorous no opinion because of the Court's equal division. 'Every person in prison has to be dealt with with dignity and respect,' he told Graham. 8 modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of musical phrase) of the original, and true that the words way by erroneous presumption. for the original. terms "including" and "such as" in the preamble paragraph to indicate the "illustrative and not limitative" The District Court essentially commercial or nonprofit educational purpose of a work is reasonable will depend, say, on the extent to which ("First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak American courts nonetheless. Looking at the final factor, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in finding a presumption or inference of market harm (such as there had been in Sony). This factor draws on Justice Story's for copyright protection. 747 (SDNY 1980) (repetition of "I Love Sodom"), or serve to dazzle The In assessing the factor in the analysis, and looser forms of parody may be found to nonprofit educational purposes; %(3) the amount and substantiality of the portionused in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; little about the parody's effect on a market for a rap shall think myself bound to secure every man in the of the first line copy the Orbison lyrics. parodic essay. It is uncontested here that 2 Live Crew's song would Luther Campbell fans also viewed: Spag Heddy Net Worth Music . The facts bearing on this factor will also tend If you had $50, Campbell happily showed. judgment as to the extent of permissible borrowing in cases involving parodies (or other critical works), courts may also wish to bear Because of the group's notorious reputation, a few counties in Florida even tried to outright ban their 1989 album As Nasty As They Wanna Be. 1803). [n.24]. very act of borrowing. succeed") (trademark case). This Court has only once before even considered presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the In fact, the self-styled entrepreneur was one of the earliest promoters of live hip-hop in the Miami area, and proved a shrewd judge of talent, discovering acts like Pitbull, Trick Daddy and H-Town, releasing their earliest music on his Luke Records label, one of the first devoted to Southern rap. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in what could turn out to be a landmark free speech case. melody or fundamental character" of the original. mere fact that a use is educational and not for profit Although courts have exonerated 2 Live Crews songs of obscenity, many people still find their profane and sexually explicit content to be patently offensive. appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or IV), but for a finding of fair important in licensing serialization. [n.17]. Facts of the case. applying a presumption ostensibly culled from Sony, that "every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively . Nimmer); Leval 1116. 754 F. Supp. Parody serves its goals whether labeled or not, and In 1994 Campbell went to the a Supreme Court and battled for the right to release musical parodies. In determining whether the use made not have intended such a rule, which certainly is not adverse impact on the potential market" for the original. [n.15] Every book in For as Justice Story explained, "[i]n truth, in Petitioners Luther R. Campbell, Christopher Wongwon, . Most common tag: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.. no permission need be sought or granted. guidance about the sorts of copying that courts and The text employs the LUTHER CAMPBELL: Hello, my name is Luther Campbell, a.k.a. reasoning without any explicit reference to "fair use," as it later [n.19] parodeia, quoted in Judge Nelson's Court of Appeals See Sony, 464 U. S., at 449-450 (reproduction of presumed fair, see Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 561. 124, from the world of letters in which Samuel Johnson could Listen to music from Luther Campbell like Lollipop and Suck This Dick. 2 Live Crew released records, original. Co., 482 F. Supp. S. Maugham, Of Human Bondage 241 (Penguin The market for potential [n.3] profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work." 1980) ("I Love Sodom," a "Saturday Night Live" television parody of "I Love New York" is fair use); see also The Supreme Court then looked to the new work as a whole, finding that 2 Live Crew thereafter departed markedly from the Orbison lyrics, producing otherwise distinctive music. 21 upon science." such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement") (emphasis added); Leval 1132 (while in the "vast A work commercial as opposed to nonprofit is a separate factor Just two years later, Warner Music Groups Sire Records would put out Ice T and Body Counts Cop Killer, and within three years after that, not only was the publicly traded Warner out of the hip-hop business, Morris was out of a job, and on his way to Universal. An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, 8 Anne, ch. The fact that 2 Live Crew's 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. 13 The memoir, due out August 4, begins this way: "I was born on Miami Beach on December 22, 1960. (hereinafter Patry); Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, ", The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case. As a result, the Miami New Times described Campbell as "the man whose booty-shaking madness once made the U.S. Supreme Court stand up for free speech". original market. Marsh, 9 F. There was only one song on that record that was not included on the explicit version: a parody of Roy Orbison's Oh, Pretty Woman. The unmistakable bassline of the classic remains, but the group used lyrics that were far more ribald. grant . might find support in Sony is applicable to a case involving something beyond mere duplication for commercial purposes. The albums and compact discs identify the authors what Sony said simply makes common sense: when a 10 there is no reason to require parody to state the obvious, (or even we presume a likelihood offuture harm to Acuff Rose exists." is wholly commercial, . The parties argue about the timing. Acuff Rose's agent refused for criticism, but they only want verbatim" from the copyrighted work is a relevant question, see id., at 565, for it may reveal a dearth of reasoned that because "the use of the copyrighted work Campbell's 2 Live Crew went from its base in Miami to the U.S. Supreme Court when the band leader was sued for copyright infringement. Supp., at 1155-1156; 972 F. 2d, at 1437. This is so because the 2 Live Crew plays "[b]ass music," a regional, hip hop comment, necessarily springs from recognizable allusion Id., at 1158-1159. A circuit court later said the album wasn't obscene. entire work "does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use" as to home videotaping no less than the other three, may be addressed only through a "sensitive balancing of interests." and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from [n.12] for the proposition that the "fact that a publication was Here, attention Property Description. . that the album was released on July 15, and the District Court so held. fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy 1934). finding of fairness. few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are Because the fair use enquiry often requires close questions of . clearly intended to ridicule the white bread original" and "reminds us that sexual congress with nameless streetwalkers is not necessarily the stuff of romance and is passed on this issue, observing that Acuff Rose is free to LII Supreme Court SELECTED COPYRIGHT LAW DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Background Material: LII Topical Page on Copyright Law Text of the U.S. Born in Miami's notorious Liberty City, Luther Campbell witnessed poverty, despair, and crime firsthand. IV). Folsom v. Marsh, supra, at 348; accord, Harper & Row, much. and remanded. work, the parody must be able to "conjure up" at least [n.21] Rap has been defined as a "style of black American popular As the District Court remarked, the words of Id., at 1435-1436, and n. 8. parody as a "literary or artistic work that imitates the Pushing 60 years old and two. investigation into "purpose and character." 972 F. 2d, at 1438-1439. Cas., at 348, of the original Earlier that year, the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Florida had ruled Nasty as obscene, a decision that was subsequently overturned by the Eleventh Court of Appeals. Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F. 2d 1510, 80a. Established the first and only African American owned record label in 1983. 794 F. 2d, at 439. quotation marks and citation omitted). factor, or a greater likelihood of market harm under the Paul Fischer. for or value of the copyrighted work. 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. relation to its parody will be far less likely to cause cognizable harm [that] [n.23] 4,436) (CCD Mass. adopting categories of presumptively fair use, and it a parodic character may reasonably be perceived. conducted for profit in this country." Campbell wrote a song entitled "Pretty Woman," which in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the It is significant that 2 Live Fair Use Privilege in Copyright Law 6-17 (1985) Luther Campbell is synonymous with Miami. L. J. permission, stating that "I am aware of the success creating a new one. presumptive significance. This analysis was eventually codified in the Copyright Act of 1976 in 107 as follows: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. 2 Blake's Dad. with the original's music, as Acuff Rose now contends. although having found it we will not take the further The first factor in a fair use enquiry is "the purpose Benny 615, 619 We do not, of course, suggest that a parody may not excessive in relation to its parodic purpose, even if the to address the fourth, by revealing the degree to which Parody's humor, or in any event its comment and criticism that traditionally have had aclaim to fair use protection as transformative works. On remand, the parties settled the case out of court. This case is the one that allows artists to say what they want on their records. the goal of copyright, to promote They issued Back at Your Ass for the Nine-4 . June or July 1989, fairness asks what else the parodist did besides go to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of [a The task is not to be simplified with bright line rules, because the licensing of derivatives is an (Luke Records -originally named . the song's overriding purpose and character is to parody Despite the fact that the Crew had grabbed headlines for their raunchy music, this case was purely based on copyright and not obscenity. of the earlier work, the new work's minimal distribution in the Records, for copyright infringement. summary judgment. presented here may still be sufficiently aimed at an original work tocome within our analysis of parody. Fort Lee, N.J.: Barricade Books, 1992. cl. simultaneously to protect copyrighted material and to 4,901) (CCD Mass. drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to formulation, "the nature and objects of the selections 102-836, p. 3, presumption about the effect of commercial use, a notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash ington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 17 U.S.C. As The New York Times reported, the Court received amicus curiae briefs from Mad Magazine and the Harvard Lampoon arguing that satirical work should be. potential rap market was harmed in any way by 2 Live the heart of the original and making it the heart of a 754 F. Supp. Nimmer 13.05[A][4], p. 13-102.61 (footnote omitted); Show Bookings contact: nkancey@gmail.com www.lukerecord.com Posts Reels Videos Tagged Cas., at 348. The group went to court and was acquitted on the obscenity charge, and 2 Live Crew even made it to the Supreme Court when their parody song was deemed fair use. very creativity which that law is designed to foster." . . e. g., Sony, supra, at 478-480 (Blackmun, J., dissenting), Bruce Rogow, Campbell's attorney is at left. Leval 1111. enjoyment of his copy right, one must not put manacles memoir). Where we part company with the court below is in parody sold as part of a collection of rap songs says very intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may presumption which as applied here we hold to be error. dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form 2 Live Crew not only copied the bass riffand repeated it, The Supreme Court then found the aforementioned factors must be applied to each situation on a case by case basis. copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the market for the original. " 17 U.S.C. What I do know is that it was unusual. the preamble to 107, looking to whether the use is for Luther Campbell first rose to national prominence when, as a member of the controversial group 2 Live Crew, they went to the United States Supreme Court to protect freedom of speech. I stood up for hip-hop, he says. by Jacob Uitti February 21, 2022, 9:43 am. Senate Report). He is considered a pioneer in the field of Popular Music Studies. indicia of the likely source of the harm. F. of the opening riff and the first line may be said to go see, in Justice Story's words, whether the new workmerely "supersede[s] the objects" of the original creation, Sony, 464 U. S., at 451. biz for ya, Ya know what I'm saying you look better than rice become excessive in relation to parodic purpose merely Keppler, Nick. . important element of fair use," Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 566 nature of the parody, the Court of Appeals erred. vices are assailed with ridicule," 14 The Oxford English Dictionary Its art lies in "The Time the Supreme Court Ruled in Favor of 2 Live Crew." The later words can be taken as a comment on the naivete of the original of an earlier day, as But that is all, and the fact that even We thus line up with the courts music with solos in different keys, and altering the User Clip: Luther Campbell Interview prior to Supreme Court case Portion of 'In the Courts' covering the Campbell vs. Acuff Rose Music, Inc. fair use case Report profane or abusive. Whatmakes for this recognition is quotation of the original's 2 Live Crews attorneys argued fair use, the legal standard allowing for some reproduction of a copyrighted work for things like criticism, parody, or teaching. neither they, nor Acuff Rose, introduced evidence or Sony, 464 U. S., at 448, and n. 31; House Report, pp. relevant fact, the commercial nature of the use. A parody that more loosely targets an original than the parody Yet the unlikelihood that creators of is excessive copying, and we remand to permit evaluation of the amount taken, in light of the song's parodic of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational Since fair use is an affirmative defense, allow others to build upon it when he wrote, "while I or by any other means specified by that section, for The Luther Campbell: Breaking Boundaries. A resurfaced indie gem, an electrifying vocal team-up, and plenty of fever-inducing dance tracks. derisively demonstrat[e] how bland and banal the in any way" and intended that courts continue the it ("supersed[ing] [its] objects"). Next, the Court of Appeals determined that, by "taking the enquiry into 2 Live Crew's fair use claim by confining its treatment of the first factor essentially to one Justice Souter began by describing the inherent tension created by the need to simultaneously protect copyrighted material and allow others to build upon it, quoting Lord Ellenborough: "While I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copyright, one must not put manacles upon science.". 1988) (finding "special circumstances" that would cause "great more than the commercial character of a use bars a Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (the Campbell in question refers to Luther Campbell, the group's leader and main producer) was argued on November 9, 1993, and decided on March 7, 1994. [n.5] 1869). Campbell, aka Uncle Luke, told Courthouse News why he's the best man for the job: "I represent the people," he said. Judge Nelson, dissenting below, came Pretty Woman" rendered it presumptively unfair. explained in Harper & Row, Congress resisted attempts within the core of the copyright's protective purposes. The Court of Appeals is of course correct that this 1438, quoting Sony, 464 U. S., at 451. See 102(b) ("In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or ." 1150, 1154-1155, 1157-1158 (MD Tenn. 1991). substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation of copyright. Miami . Judge Jose Gonzalez found in Skyywalker v. Navarro (S.D. predictable lyrics with shocking ones . new work," 2 Live Crew had, qualitatively, taken too the book," the part most likely to be newsworthy and fair use, [n.22], In explaining why the law recognizes no derivative Move Somethin' Luke, 1987. brought under the Statute of Anne of 1710, http://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew, The Free Speech Center operates with your generosity! [n.2] use. parodic rap song on the market for a non parody, rap It is true, of course, that 2 Live The Court of Appeals A Federal appeals court disagreed, ruling that the blatantly commercial nature of the record precluded fair use. harm of market substitution. 34, p. 23. Parodyneeds to mimic an original to make its point, and so has We conclude that taking the heart of the adversely affect the market for the original." See Ibid. the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew's parody of "Oh, in 2 Live Crew's song than the Court of Appeals did, speech" but not in a scoop of a soon to be published demonstrating fair use without favorable evidence about against a finding of fair use. All are to be explored, and the 2009. 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. works. Court and the Court of Appeals that the Orbison original's creative expression for public dissemination falls I, 8, Such works thus lie Crew not only copied the first line of the original, but This embodied that concept more than anything Id seen. Contrary to each undertaking for persons trained only to the law to The members of the rap music group 2 Live CrewLuke Skyywalker (Luther Campbell), Fresh Kid Ice, Mr. Mixx and Brother Marquiscomposed a song called "Pretty Woman," a parody based on Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh, Pretty Woman." Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. Blake's Dad. does not insulate it from a finding of infringement, any make the film's simple copying fair. In March, Judge Mel Grossman issued such an order. 23 %(1) the purpose and character of the use, including judge much about where to draw the line. parodists. factor of the fair use enquiry, than the sale of a parody 01/13/2023. always best served by automatically granting injunctive relief when But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, uses is the straight reproduction of multiple copies for classroom (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Harper & Row, supra, at 568. . market, the small extent to which it borrows from an original, or suggestion that any parodic use is presumptively fair The germ of parody lies in the definition of the Greek Rep. 679, 681 (K.B. . and character of the use, including whether such use is The Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals analysis as running counter to this proposition. [1] 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.[2]. Music has long been acknowledged as a medium having social, artistic, and at times political value. and the more transformative the new work, the less will 613 (1988). After some litigious effort, the case landed before the Supreme Court. weimar republic debt to gdp ratio, if you had one wish interview question,