Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

Definition

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1994 that addressed the concept of fair use in copyright law, particularly in relation to parody and transformative works. The case involved the rap group 2 Live Crew, which created a parody of Roy Orbison's song 'Oh, Pretty Woman.' The ruling clarified that a transformative work could qualify for fair use even if it was made for commercial purposes, emphasizing the importance of context in determining fair use.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled that 2 Live Crew's parody was transformative because it added new meaning and expression to Orbison's original song.
2. The decision emphasized that commercial nature of a work does not automatically disqualify it from being considered fair use.
3. The case established a precedent for how courts evaluate fair use claims, particularly regarding parody and commentary.
4. The ruling highlighted the need to consider the purpose and character of the use, along with its effect on the market for the original work.
5. The outcome of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music has influenced numerous cases related to copyright and creative expression since its ruling.

Review Questions

• What were the main legal questions addressed in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. regarding fair use?
  • The main legal questions revolved around whether 2 Live Crew's parody constituted fair use under copyright law, particularly given its commercial nature. The Supreme Court had to determine if the transformative nature of the parody was enough to qualify for fair use despite being a commercial project. Ultimately, the Court found that the parody added new expression to the original work and could be seen as a commentary on it, thus qualifying as fair use.
• How did Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music impact the understanding of transformative use in copyright law?
  • The ruling clarified that transformative use is a critical factor in determining fair use and does not depend solely on whether the work is commercial or non-commercial. By emphasizing that parody can serve as a commentary and may be protected even if intended for profit, the case shaped how future courts would analyze similar situations involving copyright infringement claims. This has led to broader protections for creative works that engage with existing copyrighted material in meaningful ways.
• Analyze the broader implications of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music for documentary filmmakers when using copyrighted material.
  • Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music set a significant precedent for documentary filmmakers by affirming that transformative uses of copyrighted material can qualify for fair use, even in commercial contexts. This means that filmmakers have more freedom to incorporate parodic elements or commentaries on existing works without facing copyright infringement issues, provided they transform the material meaningfully. As a result, this ruling encourages greater creativity and expression in documentaries, allowing filmmakers to critique or contextualize their subjects while navigating copyright laws more effectively.

Related terms

Fair Use: A legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner, provided it meets certain criteria.

Transformative Use: A type of use that adds new expression or meaning to the original work, often crucial in determining fair use.

Parody: A humorous or satirical imitation of a work that often comments on or criticizes the original work.